iOS 9 To Have Ad Blocking Capabilities

simpler? exclusive ad channel? by MessyBlob · 2015-06-11 23:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

This makes sense in the Apple ecosystem. It speeds up web browsing and streamlines the experience, and if ads are blocked at browser or OS level, it gives Apple a chance to create their own approved ad market. I think it's a step too far to assume that they can insert unintended content arbitrarily into a web page or existing ad slot.

Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by msauve · 2015-06-11 23:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why sell ads, when you can sell the ability to let ads be seen?

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by Black.Shuck · 2015-06-12 00:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple makes, relatively speaking, no money at all from advertising.
Indeed, if you take its entire software ecosystem as a whole, it makes up for a mere fraction of Apple's total profit when compared to its hardware sales.
So when we're all being very clever cynics and conspiracy theorists, perhaps we would do well to look at the motivation of a company in a holistic sense. For Apple, perhaps if they let users control ads, their overall experience of the platform improves, and they're more likely to remain loyal and keep buying hardware.
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · 2015-06-12 00:17 · Score: 1

I think it's a step too far to assume that they can insert unintended content arbitrarily into a web page or existing ad slot.
They certainly can. Perhaps you meant will?.

--
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Re: simpler? exclusive ad channel? by alvinrod · 2015-06-12 00:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you can't beat them, destroy their revenue stream. It's the same reason Google released free online office software to combat Microsoft and why Android is free. It's just good business sense.
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 00:36 · Score: 0

> Apple makes, relatively speaking, no money at all from advertising.
Not long ago, Apple didn't make any revenue with MP3 player gadgets.
How long until Apple ad blocker lets through *exclusively* Apple ads? (call them "infomumblemumble" or what: it's all about user experience, no?)
How long until Apple takes money to let advertisers dip their finger into Apple's walled garden? Just a teenie weenie bit?
And an end user tweaking her box... God forbid! (or the DMCA, which these days is nearly the same).
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by gnasher719 · 2015-06-12 00:58 · Score: 3, Funny

Why sell ads, when you can make bazillions from selling phones, and you might sell even more if web sites come ad free?

As for hurting Google, that's a strategy that Google loves to employ themselves, so that's likely a very welcome side effect.
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by sys64764 · 2015-06-12 01:00 · Score: 1

Ah yes, a female tweaking her box. Can't have that, no siree!
Re: simpler? exclusive ad channel? by monkeyxpress · 2015-06-12 01:02 · Score: 2

And one of the main reasons they developed Chrome (though the standard compliance thing was a big one too).
You can see why Google had to shaft Apple and push Android though. Imagine the situation they would be in now if Apple dominated all mobile and they were dependent on their 'generosity' to allow advertising and services through.
However I doubt they are doing this so they can switch off the tap to Google. It won't destroy Google or make Apple much extra money, but will absolutely spark of the thermo-nuclear war Jobs was so keen for. There would probably be enough lawyering to pull global GDP out of its present malaise if they did that.
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 01:10 · Score: 0

That's actually AdBlock Plus's business model.
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by MessyBlob · 2015-06-12 01:15 · Score: 1

...Perhaps you meant will?.
Yes, that would be more accurate :o]
Re: simpler? exclusive ad channel? by johanw · 2015-06-12 01:51 · Score: 1

The thermonuclear option would be for Apple to built an adblocker themselves instead of only providing the means for others to do it, and enable it by default.
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by nsre · 2015-06-12 02:15 · Score: 1

Are you considering app store revenues as part of the Apple software ecosystem? I would think those profits would be pretty substantial, even when compared against hardware sales.
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by jbolden · 2015-06-12 02:37 · Score: 3, Informative

Apple does $231.5b in revenue. Paid apps revenue is $5.37b. So a couple percent. Advertising BTW is much smaller at $94.5m
Re: simpler? exclusive ad channel? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 02:39 · Score: 0

The real thermonuclear option would be for Google to pull all of their apps from the App Store.
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by vivaoporto · 2015-06-12 02:59 · Score: 3, Informative

That's not what's in play here. Here is the same story with more sources, more technical information and without the Google vs. Apple flamebait angle:

Adblocking is coming to the iPhone with iOS 9

The next version of Safari will let users block ads on iPhones and iPads.

With the roll-out of iOS 9, Apple is giving app developers an easy way to create mobile ad blockers for Safari on iPhones and iPads. The new "Content Blocking" feature allows developers to pass a JSON file with a set of rules for images, popups, cookies, resources and other elements in Safari.

Sources like The Next Web point out that such a feature would allow ad blocking and privacy apps "to exist on iOS for the first time since launch".

On the other hand the Marketing Land warns that this move "could chip away at Google's and other ad networks' mobile ad revenue from iOS devices", NiemanLab calls it "a blow for mobile advertising" and Cult of Mac asks if that is a good thing and proposes as an answer:

Is that a good thing? Well, maybe for the average user, for a period of time. But when you block ads on the web, you prevent content providers from earning any revenue from them. If we all did that, our favorite sites would have to find other sources of revenue, or stop supplying content altogether.

I have no idea why, in a technical and privacy oriented forum as ours, the focus of the accepted submission was not on the fact that this is an "Adblocker app enabler" move instead of a "Google killer move".
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by Chas · 2015-06-12 03:01 · Score: 1

Hell, it only makes sense in pretty much the entire mobile industry.
Ads, on a transfer-limited device (like phones) are, essentially, theft of resources.

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re: simpler? exclusive ad channel? by IamTheRealMike · 2015-06-12 03:10 · Score: 0

If you can't beat them, destroy their revenue stream. It's the same reason Google released free online office software to combat Microsoft and why Android is free. It's just good business sense.
That analogy is really poor - Google Apps is only free for personal use. Corporates pay for it. And Android is free because they wanted to help unify the mobile OS space, and knew that doing an open source OS was one way to do that.
With this strategy Apple are trying to destroy the revenue stream not only of Google, but of lots of companies that don't compete with them and have nothing to do with them. In fact advertising is the revenue model of most of the web, ignoring a handful of paywalled newspapers and other services. If this is Apple's way to try and "compete" with Google, then it's a scorched earth policy that says they don't care how many enemies they make along the way. And it's not about making a better or cheaper product, like how Android competes with iOS, it's about using existing market share to quietly interfere with other people's businesses.
This is far closer to Microsoft strategies than Google's. It's only "good business sense" if you've confused legitimate capitalist competition with destroying your competitors via any means possible.
Re: simpler? exclusive ad channel? by Flytrap · 2015-06-12 03:13 · Score: 1

You can see why Google had to shaft Apple and push Android though. Imagine the situation they would be in now if Apple dominated all mobile and they were dependent on their 'generosity' to allow advertising and services through...
To a large extent Google's mobile advertising business is already dependent on Apple's "generosity". Up to 75% of Google's mobile ad revenue is dependent on Apple's continued placement of Google as the default search engine on its iOS devices http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05... - a treasured position which Google pays Apple an estimated $2 billion a year to hold onto http://bgr.com/2015/05/27/ipho.... The loss of of mobile advertising revenue from iOS platforms would knock over 13% off Googles total revenue (nearly $9 billion in 2014 numbers)
Yes, things could be a lot worse if Google had not entered the market with its own mobile operating system... But with support for ad blocking, Apple is going after Google, not Android (after having earned 90% of the smartphone profits in 2014, Apple needs Android as much as Microsoft needed the Mac in the late 1990's to stave off the scrutiny of regulators around the world).
According to Jason Calacanis https://www.linkedin.com/pulse..., Tim Cook is slowly getting revenge on Google on behalf of Steve Jobs - without doing it directly... "We did not enter the search business," Jobs said. "They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them..." So, Tim Cook is playing the slow revenge game....
Given the revenue challenges that all Android OEMs are facing (with the obvious exception of Samsung), by going after Google's ability to remain Android's the benevolent benefactor - i.e. ad revenue - Apple may yet give Steve Jobs the revenge he sought... only it will not be the thermonuclear victory he envisaged... its a slow war of attrition.
Re: simpler? exclusive ad channel? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 03:49 · Score: 1

And that's a bad thing? The ad market just needs to die:
1: It is a bubble.
2: Ads on desktop machines have been proven to be a source for malware.
3: Ads propagate data through a lot of unknown sites.
4: It is an ever hungry beast. First text ads, then Flash ads, then whole screen ads, then 60 second commercials before a web page, then 60 second commercials with a paragraph of text... when will it end?
Internet sites existed before the ad market. They can exist and get revenue just fine with text ads or iAds without having to get ever more intrusive or becoming a vector for malware.
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by oldmac31310 · 2015-06-12 04:19 · Score: 1

certainly not a 'teenie' - unfortunate choice of words from a paranoid fool.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by oldmac31310 · 2015-06-12 04:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

If those numbers are correct it is really an endorsement of Apple and their strategies. They sell things people want to buy. How dare they?!! Advertising is pure filth and the lowest rung on the business ladder. Google, Facebook and their ilk are parasites. Apple seems to stand a little above the mire.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by oldmac31310 · 2015-06-12 04:28 · Score: 2

Because the submitters like to be sensationalist and the editors are not really editors and haven't a clue about anything. Next. Obligatory: New here?

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Re:simpler? exclusive ad channel? by jbolden · 2015-06-12 04:47 · Score: 1

Advertising 1926-2014 hangs around 1 to 1.4% of GDP, with a few exceptional years. Moreover advertising spending lags the media, people trust older media more so even as television replaced radio, radio advertising revenues stayed high well into the early 1960s. Similarly with Internet and old media.
Information technologies spending is around 5-8% or about 5x as large as advertising. Also fairly stable.
Re: simpler? exclusive ad channel? by zieroh · 2015-06-12 07:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

Android is free because they wanted to help unify the mobile OS space
And by "unify", you mean "fragment to the point of being completely dysfunctional". If this is Google's idea of an improvement, they must be some sadistic fucking bastards.

--
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Re: simpler? exclusive ad channel? by Altus · 2015-06-12 07:26 · Score: 1

Yeah what would we do without the Google+ app.
Google makes a ton of money on the data they acquire from those apps. iOS users represent heavy consumers. Google needs access to those users and their data more than apple needs Google. That's why Google pays Apple to make sure Google remains the default search option in iOS.

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re: simpler? exclusive ad channel? by mrbcs · 2015-06-12 09:22 · Score: 2

I use a hosts file on my computer to block ads and I use Adblock on my iPad.
I use a PVR or DVR on my TV. I hate ads. They don't work. I wasted a few thousand dollars a couple years ago on radio ads to realize that people have tuned out all ads.
I pay for satelite radio to avoid ads there.
Find another revenue stream. Ads are history. Only the ad execs and the hopeful still want them to work.

--
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
Re: simpler? exclusive ad channel? by andymadigan · 2015-06-12 14:13 · Score: 1

Or this could just be the 2015 version of the pop-up blocker. The same arguments were made against pop-up blockers that are now made against ad blockers. Then Firefox and its pop-up blocker went mainstream and the feature was adopted by the rest of the browsers.

Mozilla (back then) only had an interest in having a good user experience, and blocking pop-ups turned out to be an easy way to improve user experience. Likewise, Apple might just be looking to improve user experience. Since they have no financial interest in online advertising, they're free to act in the interest of the user.

--
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.

websites forced for two ad networks then by gl4ss · 2015-06-11 23:36 · Score: 1

websites forced for two ad networks then, apples and googles.

and wait for the lawsuits to ensue.

though, it might finally lead to ads being delivered from the same host as the rest of the content on the page - that would be some well needed sanity(and removal of javascript from the adverts for the security implications that approach has).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Re:websites forced for two ad networks then by Antique+Geekmeister · 2015-06-11 23:51 · Score: 2, Informative

> though, it might finally lead to ads being delivered from the same host as the rest of the content on the page
This cannot be done. much of graphical and especially streaming content is from more robust "content delivery networks", such as Akamai, that host much larger proxies closer to the web browser's "final mile". Even modest icon or graphical content on a web page will overwhelm many corporate core web servers without these third-party hosted proxies, and it's especially true for ad content. Slashdot itself benefits from its extremely simple format, and can thus handle its load quite easily with quite modest resources. But if they tried to host the advertising content all on the same systems, I'm quite certain it would collapse the servers if not the firewalls themselves.
Re:websites forced for two ad networks then by drinkypoo · 2015-06-11 23:56 · Score: 2

But if they tried to host the advertising content all on the same systems, I'm quite certain it would collapse the servers if not the firewalls themselves.
A plan with no drawbacks!

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:websites forced for two ad networks then by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 00:34 · Score: 0

much of graphical and especially streaming content is from more robust "content delivery networks"
So remove the graphical and streaming content from ads. Problem solved. With the added benefit of making the web usable again.
Re:websites forced for two ad networks then by gl4ss · 2015-06-12 00:43 · Score: 1

I don't see how that would be a drawback. bandwidth is still bandwidth anyhow, so more amazon bills for having ads on your web pages - presumably you would try to get higher ad revenue from the ad broker company to offset that.
slashdot mobile is basically unusable on _1ghz_ android phones now, due to how the ads are served and what they do. it used to be that you could read slashdot on a phone with 3.6mbytes of free ram after boot!(nokia 3650).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:websites forced for two ad networks then by CastrTroy · 2015-06-12 00:52 · Score: 1

Exactly. If websites hosted their own advertisements, they would make sure they didn't hog all the bandwidth. I don't object to all ads, but the vast majority of them are downright terrible. A simple non-moving banner can get the point across and not detract too much from my experience on the page. I think that companies placing the advertisements would actually pay more if there was some kind of standard for advertisement quality. Nobody wants to pay a lot of money to have their product pushed along get rich quick schemes and pay-to-win games. The state of advertising is in such a mess that most of the big players who care about their brand just simply stay away from advertising on the internet. Too bad there's not an ad network that cares about quality of ads. Most TV networks (as bad as their ads are) wouldn't even think about putting ads on their network that are commonly found on the internet.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:websites forced for two ad networks then by jbolden · 2015-06-12 02:40 · Score: 1

Or you move content sites as well to the CDNs. No reason that can't happen. Then each CDN has a range of ad content they support.
Re:websites forced for two ad networks then by ceoyoyo · 2015-06-12 02:51 · Score: 1

So what you're saying is that if ads had to be hosted on the same server as the content, ads would have to be approximately the same size as the content or smaller? Perish the thought!
Re:websites forced for two ad networks then by zieroh · 2015-06-12 09:07 · Score: 1

This cannot be done. much of graphical and especially streaming content is from more robust "content delivery networks", such as Akamai, that host much larger proxies closer to the web browser's "final mile". Even modest icon or graphical content on a web page will overwhelm many corporate core web servers without these third-party hosted proxies
I call bullshit. Distributing content via an edge network is trivial these days, as trivial as flipping a switch in AWS.

--
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Re:websites forced for two ad networks then by david_thornley · 2015-06-12 09:19 · Score: 1

If websites hosted their own advertisements, they'd have more reason to stop them from carrying malware. Maybe the New York Times wouldn't have infected people's computers.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-11 23:41 · Score: 0

Maybe website owner will force iPhone and iPad user to download the website app to view the content with iAd then, because Apple wants the website owner ditch Google Ads in iPhone and iPad

yet another kiddiewink /. editor by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-11 23:46 · Score: 0

hey, dipstick: it's = it is, its = possessive form

Including App Store ads? by garyok · 2015-06-11 23:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

The ad-blocking better include those bloody irritating ads that switch you out of the browser with no warning to the App Store for Clash of Clans, or some other flavour of freemium shiteware the kids are degrading themselves with these days.

--
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato

Re:Including App Store ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 00:45 · Score: 0

/*posting ac bc I modded in the thread*/
I never even knew these existed until I downloaded the mercury browser on my phone. I thought I would be clever and get a browser with ad block. Nope. Almost every other page would send me the damn app store.
Re:Including App Store ads? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2015-06-12 00:52 · Score: 1

So far I have not seen this in android. Does it happen in android too?

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re: Including App Store ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 01:37 · Score: 0

Yes, it happens.
Re: Including App Store ads? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2015-06-12 01:56 · Score: 1

Well. One more reason to stay away from smart phones for browsing. Tiny screen, bad keyboard, failing eyesight kept me off. This is one more reason to use smart phones as simple digital assistants. Not for general purpose browsing.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re: Including App Store ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 02:21 · Score: 0

Well, this is only an issue on dubious websites.
Re:Including App Store ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 04:05 · Score: 0

Like the kinds you see when you browse slashdot on mobile?
Seriously. What has happened to this place.
The slashdot of yesterday was a champion of the OSS cause, one of the key pillars of early Linux support.. Today it's clickbait and in-line ads for shitware on closed platforms.
Fuck you, Dice.
Re: Including App Store ads? by danbob999 · 2015-06-12 06:37 · Score: 1, Informative

One more reason to browse using Firefox which allows ad-blockers (at least on Android), unlike stock Android or iOS browsers.
Re: Including App Store ads? by david_thornley · 2015-06-12 09:23 · Score: 1

I always have my phone. When I'm out, I rarely have my laptop. In general, the best $THING for $ACTION is not the $THING you don't have access to.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

iOS is the majority of Google's mobile revenue by WankerWeasel · 2015-06-12 00:01 · Score: 4, Informative

iOS drives 75% of Google's mobile revenue meaning this could really hurt them depending on how much is blocked. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05...

Re:iOS is the majority of Google's mobile revenue by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 02:41 · Score: 0

How much of that percentage is from in-app ads?
Re:iOS is the majority of Google's mobile revenue by AmiMoJo · 2015-06-12 05:16 · Score: 0, Troll

An external company estimated that they make 75% of their mobile ad revenue from iOS. They don't actually know, it's just a guess.
In the mean time, the Play store did $10bn of app sales. iOS is still doing better, but it's not like Google is starved for cash or not making anything out of Android. And in any case, their primary goal is to make sure there is a good, open mobile OS that isn't a walled garden.
Pro-Apple articles love to make out that Android is failing and Apple is winning hard. 50% of all computers (if you consider smart phones and tablets to be computers) shipped last year ran Android. It's right in the article you linked to. Google doesn't care about OS version fragmentation, because it isn't a huge problem for it. We don't see hundreds of millions of zombie botnet phones due to the allegedly massive security flaws in older versions. Sites like the NY Times are just hyping up bullshit spouted by "analysts" who are trying to look like they have some insight, just to make a story.
Apple won't screw Google, because it needs Google. Who else are they going to use for the default search provider, Bing? Yahoo perhaps? Apple Maps is right at the top of the tech fuck-ups scale, Apple isn't going to make that mistake again.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:iOS is the majority of Google's mobile revenue by WankerWeasel · 2015-06-12 09:21 · Score: 1

Wow, comes through clear that you're a huge Google fanboy. We get it, you think Android is awesome and anything Apple sucks. That wasn't the point at all. Google themselves have published states showing that iOS users account for the majority of their mobile revenue. Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn all see higher CTRs (and spends) from iOS users. The point was that losing iOS revenue is big. The average iOS user results in more than $6 in revenue per year for Google while the average Android user results in less than $2. Yes there are more Android users but they have to sell 3 Android devices to make up for ever 1 iOS device. I'm not arguing who is better. Simply showing that Google sees more money from iOS users and losing them will hurt. Doesn't matter how much. Even a loss of 20% is still a significant loss.

They're extensions by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 00:07 · Score: 1

While this has been widely represented as Apple providing an add blocker in iOS 9, all that has actually happened is that they've created an API by which thirdparties can add ad-blocking extensions to Safari, and included a placeholder extension for that properties page.

Re:They're extensions by johanw · 2015-06-12 00:12 · Score: 2

Yes, and indeed ONLY to Safari. iAds in apps are not affected.
I prefer the rooted Android solution where ads are blocked in the hosts file. They are blocked then for ALL apps, not only the browser (and disabeling the Google add service with Lucky Patcher kills the remaining few).
Re:They're extensions by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 00:19 · Score: 0

If only there was a regular Slashdot reader out there who could tell us more about hosts files .... hosts files ...... host files .......
Re:They're extensions by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 00:22 · Score: 0

"I prefer the rooted Android solution where ads are blocked in the hosts file"
On iOS I've been using the Weblock app, where I copied all the custom filters from my desktop adblock plus and I've been browsing ad-free with chrome ever since.
Re:They're extensions by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 00:29 · Score: 0

There is also the fact that a lot of apps with ads phone home to a ton of websites. XPrivacy is arguably the most useful tool in this regard, since when some generic fart app won't install unless you give it every permission under the sun, you can still allow it access, but XPrivacy just feeds the app random stuff when it asks for the phone's ID, IMEI, your contacts, what's in your photos directory, and so on.
A good example of an app that hunts you down and tries to ID you closely is Yik Yak. It uses a ton of identifiers from your phone to tie the YY ID. Even though it is anonymous in one respect, it knows exactly who you are in another.
Of course, jailbroken iOS has PMP (Protect my Privacy) which does the same thing, but even the best of the best, the Chinese research groups, are getting stymied by Apple's latest protections.
Re:They're extensions by Feral+Nerd · 2015-06-12 00:58 · Score: 1

Yes, and indeed ONLY to Safari. iAds in apps are not affected.
I prefer the rooted Android solution where ads are blocked in the hosts file. They are blocked then for ALL apps, not only the browser (and disabeling the Google add service with Lucky Patcher kills the remaining few).
Are you really complaining that you won't be able to block ads in those crappy free apps that sustain themselves by injecting ads into the GUI and sometimes also by stealing your personal data? I've been asked to 'fix' Android phones on a number of occasions and that includes installing the user's favorite apps and games. To it's credit Android conscientiously lists everything the app wants access to when an app is installed. Personal details, contacts list, media/photos and browsing history are standard requests with apps that have obvious reasons to access these things. I've even had a crappy quiz game demand access to the GPS chip and the camera. People just seem to install this crap and approve access without thinking. It is amazing what people will do to get a free app. I'm not trying to take a shot at Android users in general, I've experienced the same level of cluelessness with iOS users.
Re:They're extensions by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2015-06-12 01:08 · Score: 2

I think if you say HOSTS file three times in a mirror, APK shows up.
(Which is a great initialism when you're talking about android.)

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Re:They're extensions by johanw · 2015-06-12 01:28 · Score: 1

Fortunately XPrivacy is finally becoming usefull on Android 5.x (mainly due to Xposed on ART being worked on). Android 6 is said to have a rights management system built-in (finally!) but it won't be as fine-grained and complete as XPrivacy offers.
Re:They're extensions by johanw · 2015-06-12 01:49 · Score: 0

> Are you really complaining that you won't be able to block ads in those crappy free apps
No because on my Android I AM able to block them. First, there is a hosts file with ad server blocking. Second, most apps that require no internet permission are blocked in my firewall. If it does need internet I can block the Google ads services activity with Lucky Patcher, or have it patch the app itself to remove ads. Xprivacy can block some calls that threaten my privacy and allow ads to be personalized. Very few ads survive all that combined.
Re:They're extensions by gnasher719 · 2015-06-12 04:32 · Score: 1

To it's credit Android conscientiously lists everything the app wants access to when an app is installed. Personal details, contacts list, media/photos and browsing history are standard requests with apps that have obvious reasons to access these things.
On the other hand, that means app developers are free to request these things, and if you don't agree that an app reads your contacts list, your only choice is not to use it. On the App Store on the other hand, the app will be rejected if it requests personal data without a good reason.
Re:They're extensions by Noah+Haders · 2015-06-12 06:07 · Score: 1

I prefer the rooted Android solution where ads are blocked in the hosts file.

HOSTS! FTW!
Re:They're extensions by david_thornley · 2015-06-12 09:25 · Score: 1

Also, if the app does something potentially suspicious on an iPhone, iOS will notify you and ask permission. This means that you can get some use out of apps that ask for permissions you don't want to grant, and when you are asked about permissions you actually have some context.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:They're extensions by BasilBrush · 2015-06-12 15:44 · Score: 1

So what's user's process from seeing an ad on a page to getting that into the hosts file such that you won't see that group of ads again?
Step by step?

Prediction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 00:15 · Score: 0

I predict congress and senate will stop this, dem lobbiest dollars

Re:Prediction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 01:37 · Score: 0

Don't worry. I'm sure the president won't sign it into law... kidding

Antitrust by mjm1231 · 2015-06-12 00:16 · Score: 0, Troll

There have been antitrust allegations around Apple's new streaming music service. This seems to me to be just another way to prevent the competition from actually competing.

People used to scream holy hell when MS did this kind of shit, but Apple is just as bad and in many cases much worse. I guess they saw that Microsoft got off with a little wrist slap so why not use borderline illegal (or blatantly illegal, once in a while) anticompetitive tactics.

--
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.

Re:Antitrust by gnasher719 · 2015-06-12 04:36 · Score: 2

There have been antitrust allegations around Apple's new streaming music service. This seems to me to be just another way to prevent the competition from actually competing.

People used to scream holy hell when MS did this kind of shit, but Apple is just as bad and in many cases much worse. I guess they saw that Microsoft got off with a little wrist slap so why not use borderline illegal (or blatantly illegal, once in a while) anticompetitive tactics.
Here is a paragraph from the article that you quote, to put this into perspective: But Castle says he will be surprised if this goes anywhere. Apple, he notes, has a lot of competition in the streaming music space: Spotify, YouTube, GooglePlay, Amazon. "There are inquiries all the time" he says. "They ask a few questions. You send a response and that's it."

In other words: There's lots of smoke without a fire.
Re:Antitrust by david_thornley · 2015-06-12 09:30 · Score: 1

People used to scream bloody hell when Microsoft did it, because Microsoft had monopolies. To run a normal business, people had to have Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Try anything different, and they'd likely have subtle (or not so-subtle) incompatibilities that they'd have to deal with.
Apple never had a monopoly in desktop or laptop computers. Back in the dinky market before the IBM PC, they were probably the best-selling brand, but they had a lot of competition. For a while, Apple had an arguable monopoly on smartphones and smartphone apps, and Apple did have a tablet monopoly for a while. Nowadays, to run a normal business, you are going to need smartphones and probably tablets, but Android is a perfectly viable alternative to iOS, and Microsoft has some products that some people like.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Google is an advertising company by Snufu · 2015-06-12 00:18 · Score: 1

so obviously they won't be able to match Apple's move and provide built-in ad blocking for Chrome or Android.

An interesting FU from Apple to Google.

Re:Google is an advertising company by ledow · 2015-06-12 00:39 · Score: 1

Google don't need to provide any more than Apple have done. The *capability* to do so.
In fact, they already do that, it's just not made a huge fuss about because - why would you unless you DIDN'T have it? Google don't make their own ad-blocker the same as Apple don't make their own ad-blocker, but now they are just providing the function to allow such things.
This just allows ad-blocking plugins on iOS, basically. Chrome's had plugins on iOS for ages: Safari's had plugins too. But neither were able to have ad-blocking plugins because Apple didn't approve / design for them.
http://lifehacker.com/chrome-f...
The problem is, in the Apple mono-culture, you have to wait for Apple to add the functionality before you can use it. Try finding an MDM product that can actually do things on managed iPads / iPhones that Apple don't provide an MDM API for. You won't. The MDM API is supplied by Apple and no matter what you use, that's all you can use to modify Apple MDM functions, settings, etc. There is no MDM app that can push an app over-the-air without the user having to sign in to iTunes App Store to authorise it as well. Because Apple just don't provide that functionality, even on "supervised" devices.
As usual, this is an "Apple adds features that everyone else has had for decades" story that somehow turns it into something earth-shattering when, actually, Apple are playing catch-up after years of denial for such features.
Re:Google is an advertising company by TheRaven64 · 2015-06-12 01:00 · Score: 1

I'm surprised that it's taken this long. I've thought that MS and Apple should have been incorporating aggressive anti-tracking and ad blocking capabilities into IE and Safari for a few years, because neither company makes much money from ads, both could easily spin it as a user-centric decision, and it would hurt Google a lot.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Browser Extension Required by jomuyo · 2015-06-12 00:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

After reading the linked ZDNet article, looks like Apple is only allowing extensions in Safari to block content with in the browser. Thus allowing things like Ghostery and NoScript to be possible or more affective in iOS 9. Bottom line, if you want ad-blocking in iOS 9 you will have to wait for the proper ad-blocking extension to be available, or write one yourself.

Re:Browser Extension Required by XxtraLarGe · 2015-06-12 01:39 · Score: 1

After reading the linked ZDNet article, looks like Apple is only allowing extensions in Safari to block content with in the browser. Thus allowing things like Ghostery and NoScript to be possible or more affective in iOS 9. Bottom line, if you want ad-blocking in iOS 9 you will have to wait for the proper ad-blocking extension to be available, or write one yourself.
So i wonder if that means this will be a framework that's available to developers for their own browsers?

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.

You answered your own question by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 00:34 · Score: 0

After all, the iPhone and iPad maker has its own advertising network

Re:Online Rakhi Delivery in Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 00:55 · Score: 0

Do you swap gifts before or after you've fucked?

Simple. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 00:56 · Score: 0

They will block ads. BUT not their own ads.

I love the planitif bleating of the billionaires by EmperorOfCanada · 2015-06-12 00:59 · Score: 1

I love the planitif bleating of the millionaires and billionaires who will complain that this is going to kill them and their "free" business models. The simple reality is that if I were offered a great micro payment system I would be happy to pay for quality websites. Not much but enough that the truly great websites would make money.

The crap SEO whores and whatnot of the type that have 50%+ advertising and sell my data wouldn't get a cent.

I will turn this feature on in a second and never look back.

As It Should Be by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 01:09 · Score: 1

Ad blocking is a right. If I buy a device, I should be allowed to control the I/O -- including disallowing any ads. Advertising, sadly, has become the de facto "business model" for the WWW. I work in IT and have for three decades. Almost no one clicks on ads. They make money because of impressions. The page paints and they get credit for the ad having been seen. Some ads follow clicks to pay, some don't. I don't see any of them and never will again. I block everything.

Finally, Apple.

Re:As It Should Be by emho24 · 2015-06-12 02:32 · Score: 1

Ad blocking is a right. If I buy a device, I should be allowed to control the I/O -- including disallowing any ads
I wish this opinion was more widely adopted, and expanded to my television set.

--
You must gather your party before venturing forth.

Re:I love the planitif bleating of the billionaire by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 01:26 · Score: 0

"Plaintive".

Also, even if a micro payment system existed I wouldn't be happy to pay for them. I suspect I represent the majority. There are no ad-supported websites that you "must have". All the websites with decent content have already moved behind a paywall.

Not clear? by nine-times · 2015-06-12 01:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not immediately clear why the new ad-blocking privacy feature was included in iOS 9

Well there's a pretty obvious reason why, and I don't see any reason to discount it. It's a feature that users will like, and Apple is in the business of trying to make devices that people like. Even more specifically, Apple's general approach to making "devices that people like" tends to be to try to take the hassle out of using the product, as much as is possible. Ads are a big hassle.

It seems like a pretty obvious answer, so much so that I don't see a reason to go hunting for another one without some kind of additional information that there's some other reason.

More Paywalls by Merk42 · 2015-06-12 01:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

If it gets really popular, how long until sites remove ads altogether and instead switch to paywalls?

Re:More Paywalls by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2015-06-12 02:12 · Score: 1

The downside to paywalls is that it restricts access.
The upside to paywalls is that it means that comments sections aren't full of bullshit and trolling.
I might be willing to pay for paywalls on second thought.

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Re:More Paywalls by bluegutang · 2015-06-12 03:39 · Score: 1

I've seen sites where reading is free but you have to pay to comment.
The downside was that so few people paid that there wasn't a vibrant discussion.
Re:More Paywalls by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 03:53 · Score: 0

Paywalls are like those exclusive members only golf-courses that used to pop up now and then.
Someone had this grand idea of building an amazing golf course that only its members would have access to via their ludicrous country club dues. Now this approach works great if:
1) You build said course in a rich area and
2) No other courses are nearby to compete with you
In the end, most found out there really aren't enough super-rich folks with an interest in golf to keep things running financially. They ultimately either went bankrupt or opened the course to the public for a more modest fee.
Re:More Paywalls by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 04:02 · Score: 0

Paywalls are like those exclusive members only golf-courses that used to pop up now and then.
...
They ultimately either went bankrupt or opened the course to the public for a more modest fee.
So, sites still end up with a paywall, just a lower price?
Re:More Paywalls by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 09:44 · Score: 0

If it gets really popular, how long until sites switch to paywalls?
FTFY.

I don't understand ad blockers by tie_guy_matt · 2015-06-12 01:39 · Score: 2

I understand why people want to block pop-up and pop-under ads. I have those blocked too (and I don't think you even need to block those since not many people use them anymore.) But I don't understand why people want to block regular banner ads. Coming up with content then hosting it on a website isn't free. If advertisers want to pay for it because they think displaying an easy to ignore banner at the bottom of the page makes me more likely to buy their crap then all the better. It is better than having to pay a subscription for the content.

But since no one wants to pay for a subscription, and because so many people have ad blockers (or maybe advertisers have figured out how easy it is to ignore banner ads) websites are starting to go with sponsored content. I am sorry but sponsored content is at least 1000x more annoying than banner ads. Wonder why that site is singing the praises of some POS product? Well zoom into that tiny little dot at the bottom of the article to see the words "sponsored content."

I say bring back the banner ads. It really is a pretty painless way to pay for content. I think John Oliver gave a really good summary of the problem with sponsored content AKA native advertising:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:I don't understand ad blockers by Merk42 · 2015-06-12 02:38 · Score: 1

I don't understand why people want to block regular banner ads... I think John Oliver gave a really good summary of the problem with sponsored content AKA native advertising:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
He answered your question in the video. Content is something people want to have, but don't want to pay for.
Re:I don't understand ad blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 02:48 · Score: 0

People want content, but want to pay for it on their own terms. If you force them to do things one way, when competitors/affiliates let them do things several ways, then they're more likely to push back if your payment method is obnoxious. So if your ads slow their browsing experience down substantially, or get in the way of their experience in any other noticeable way, and you don't offer a donation/paywall option that they feel is worth the trouble for your content, then congrats: you've got content that's maybe worth glancing over, but not worth paying for.
Re:I don't understand ad blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 02:56 · Score: 0

People want content, but want to pay for it on their own terms.
Often "their own terms" means "not at all".
Re:I don't understand ad blockers by Lord+Crc · 2015-06-12 02:57 · Score: 2

But I don't understand why people want to block regular banner ads. Coming up with content then hosting it on a website isn't free.
Because of drive-by downloads.
Last year the ad network of a non-trivial Norwegian site was hacked, and they started serving malware which targeted Java. If the user hadn't updated Java fairly recently, they'd get infected without any user interaction.
The malware was designed specifically to target the largest bank in Norway. This bank required Java for their login procedure (they no longer do, took them long enough).
So, if the user visited this site with a vulnerable Java runtime, and then logged in to this bank later to pay some bills, the malware would send the money elsewhere.
Since the malware was running on the local machine, it could bypass the two-factor authentication (password+token) required when transferring money.
Re:I don't understand ad blockers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 03:38 · Score: 0

I actually prefer sponsored content.
The reason ads are so annoying is because they scream (or blink) at you and grab your attention, then they don't actually tell you anything useful about the product. They disrupt your train of thought, then provide absolutely no payout for doing so.
At least sponsored content doesn't scream, doesn't blink, doesn't do anything to garner your attention except perhaps appeal to your interests. Then, once it has your attention, it's content. It has some substance. Sure, it may be all the good stuff and none of the bad, but it should at least help you see how to use the product and why that's good for you (which is how you motivate sales).
It's like the difference between a used car salesman and a car showroom brochure. One is loud, in-your-face, and annoying, trying to beat you over the head with salesmanship in order to bully you into a purchase. The other is a glossy, rose-tinted look at a product and its features. Sometimes, you look at the glossy brochure just to dream. Other times, bits of information catch your attention and spark you to do more research and compare against the competition. But you never have a positive experience with a (stereotypical, admittedly) brash jackass used-car salesman. Ever.
Banner ads are the brash jackass form of salesmanship on the internet. Sponsored content is the quiet, glossy brochure version. By now, you should know which one I prefer. And adblock only blocks the brash jackasses. If only there were such a thing for real life (that wouldn't involve murder charges).
Re:I don't understand ad blockers by SvnLyrBrto · 2015-06-12 06:39 · Score: 2

If banner ads were still static, or even animated, gif images, I wouldn't block them. But many "regular banner ads" these days come with some pretty obnoxious javascript, stupid HTML5 tricks, and sometimes even flash (still). That sort of resource-hogging, battery-draining, vulnerability-inducing, malware-spreading nastiness needs to die, whether it's in a pop up/under, an interstitial, or "just" a banner.
So yah, I block them and don't blame anyone else for doing so. I do whitelist some sites I want to support though. But any shenanigans, and back into the blackhole they go.

--
Imagine all the people...

Re:I love the planitif bleating of the billionaire by jbolden · 2015-06-12 02:45 · Score: 1

There are all sorts of sites out there that sell individual articles like Forrestor? How many have you bought this year?

Meh... by Lumpy · 2015-06-12 02:51 · Score: 1

I already do adblocking on all my android devices. Until they start paying for my cellphone bandwidth, ad's dont appear on my devices.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

...but will it block the most anoying ad??? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 03:01 · Score: 0

...the "Hey did you know cellular data is turned off for this chatty, data plan burning app?" EVERY TIME. EVERY time. Every time I open it?

Re:I love the planitif bleating of the billionaire by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 03:14 · Score: 0

I can't think of a single paywalled site I would bother with.

To be honest, I mostly just browse Slashdot, Ars Technica, and NewEgg, with the occasional side trip to CodeProject, XKCD, Penny Arcade, The Daily WTF, and Google News.

When I run out of things to browse, I get work done.

And Slashdot's comment system is still the king of the heap, even if that heap is mostly composed of trash and fecal matter.

Google Releases Auto-Torrent App by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 03:28 · Score: 0

In order to speed conversions from iOS to Android, Google will release a program that reads through a person's iTunes collection and finds torrents of all of them and batch downloads everything.

Let me tell you why by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 03:29 · Score: 0

Mobile web browsers are constantly the target of "download this goddamn app or you can't continue" spamvertisements. King's candy crush, and WarTune "male gamers only" type of ads are the usual culprits. If iOS ships with the blocker in the default software, it's likely targeting bad behaviors that are specifically targeting iOS devices.

Why block Active Directory by PenguinJeff · 2015-06-12 03:57 · Score: 1

Are they that much anti Microsoft that they actively block Active Directory.

To generate the best hosts file? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 05:29 · Score: 0

See subject & this: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

* :)

(By "yours truly"... accept NO substitutes!)

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... & It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/... and in its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

APK

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

...apk

Re:To generate the best hosts file? by nasredin · 2015-06-12 07:34 · Score: 1

APK, I know people give you a lot of shit regarding hosts, but please don't ever stop.

Fullscreen Adverts and Redirects by timmyf2371 · 2015-06-12 05:52 · Score: 1

There is a real problem with mobile browsing right now. Many websites employ fullscreen adverts with an [x] button which is tricky to hit properly with the fingers. There is also the problem of redirects, whereby the browser is hijacked and redirected via an advertising system to a URL which opens an AppStore link (usually one of these freemium games). It's all really annoying and not at all a pleasant experience.

Now, if someone can make a blocker which gets rid of those pesky EU cookie warnings which appear on all websites, it would be even better.

--

Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic

Yes, but can it block ads in apps? by Jizzbug · 2015-06-12 06:03 · Score: 1

I'd like it to be consistent throughout.

--

-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-

AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 07:47 · 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 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).

AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 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

Re:AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out' by andymadigan · 2015-06-12 14:31 · Score: 1

We all hope you die painfully soon. But here's a small subset of the reasons you suck:

1) Will it run on my iPad (and no, I'm not jailbreaking)?
2) Can I use it to block annoying "toolbars" that sites cover 20% of their content with (e.g. Wikia)?
3) Can it be used to defeat modal boxes that try to prevent you from reading articles on various sites?
4) How about the auto-playing video on Bloomberg (and others)?

Answer: NOPE

Besides, uBlock is using 33MB of RAM right now, which is considerably less than GMail. I can even use it to block the stupid "videos" feature on the Slashdot home page.

--
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.

Thanks & agreed 110%, because... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 07:56 · Score: 0

"If what I am doing is wrong? Then I don't WANT to be 'right'" but I am right & it's the RIGHT THING TO DO (being of service to others giving them more speed, security, reliability, & even added anonymity online + getting them back THEIR money's worth on bandwidth & caps they deal with & PAY for too!)

"APK, I know people give you a lot of shit regarding hosts, but please don't ever stop." - by nasredin (958927) on Friday June 12, 2015 @03:34PM (#49899741)

I won't (trust me) & they're flinging shit but never proving my points validly technically wrong - since SHIT is all they have vs. my inviolate points favoring hosts & shit IS what they're made of in my "detractors" with no substance behind their bs of ANY value whatsoever... period!

The ones "giving me shit" as you put it??

Obviously they're 1 of 4 types of people (bank on it):

1.) Advertisers
2.) malware makers &/or botnet herders
3.) webmasters (I held the app back for them in fact, it was done, in 3 parts though in tty mode, as far back as 2003 here but when malvertizing went out of control, out the door she went to 'the masses' for the absolute good, since any idiot knows being destructive = easy, but doing good NEVER is, but it's worth it imo)
4.) An INFERIOR competitor (e.g. - AdBlock, Ghostery, & RequestPolicy)

* Doesn't 'take a brain' to realize THAT much - after all: THEY'RE THE ONES WHO GET "HURT" by it...

Problem is?

THEY've been hurting others bandwidth/speed, security, & more for DECADES...

Funniest part is that those technically unjustifiable downmods are "the best they got" but they certainly CAN'T get the better of me disproving my points on hosts files' mulitiple nigh ubiquitous value to end users...

APK

P.S.=> They're trying to 'further their own personal agendas' @ OUR expense on many levels, fuck that - I put a stop to THAT cold (their greed & negligence in allowing malware makers to use their open bid ad systems has backfired in them, eh? Not!) ... apk

Re:Thanks & agreed 110%, because... apk by andymadigan · 2015-06-12 14:42 · Score: 1

I'm exactly none of the people you listed as giving you shit, but I still want you gone. Your solution sucks and your spam is as annoying as the ads I block with uBlock, especially the native ones that your solution can't block.

--
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.

Nice try with your hyperbole. by thejynxed · 2015-06-12 08:03 · Score: 1

"What's clear is that allowing ad-blockers in iOS 9 could deliver a serious blow to Google, the biggest rival to Apple in the mobile space, because advertising remains a massive portion of the search giant's income."

These people keep saying this, and yet Apple is still considered an also-also-ALSO ran in two of the world's potentially largest markets: China and India. In these markets, Android and other OSes (and the mobile manufacturers behind them) rule the roost and Apple barely makes a dent (and isn't that much in total world-wide market share, either).

--
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.

Re:Nice try with your hyperbole. by david_thornley · 2015-06-12 09:40 · Score: 1

iOS is a large enough ecosystem to survive indefinitely, with stores and app developers and everything. There's room for more than one in the mobile area. MS Windows might be big enough, although the release of MS Office for iOS and Android suggests that Microsoft doesn't think so.
The problem with China and India is that people aren't going to make much money there, not for some time. This may hurt Apple in a couple of decades, but not in the short or medium run.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

For the BEST hosts file? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 08:12 · Score: 0

See subject & this: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

* :)

By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts so-to-speak:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & in myself, via hosts/custom hosts files use.

(Accept NO substitutes!)

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... & It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/... and in its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

APK

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

...apk

Hosts do & for the BEST hosts file? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 08:20 · Score: 0

See subject & this: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

* :)

By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts so-to-speak:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

"The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & in myself, via hosts/custom hosts files use.

(Accept NO substitutes!)

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news... & It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/... and in its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

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

easy by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 08:40 · Score: 0

Google just delists all Apple.com content from search...

OMG. That would castrate Google! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-12 17:13 · Score: 0

My guess is Apple could steal away 50% or more of ALL Android users simply by allowing users of iphones to block advertising. And what would that cost Apple? Not much, I don't think....

There would doubtless be some knock on effects, as some app developers who currently supply "free" apps which bury the user under advertising would also get hurt. But it would be really, really awesome to be able to get rid of ads on my phone.

Re:I love the planitif bleating of the billionaire by EmperorOfCanada · 2015-06-13 01:49 · Score: 1

The key problem is that I don't generally trust online payment systems. As a class I don't trust them to get it right, and I don't trust them to protect my data. Thus I would love a single system where I can trust it and then be able to dole money out from it in ways that I completely control.

In theory I just described paypal but the problem there is that they aren't really conducive to micropayments. They love their macro fees thought.

So the wall between me and anything like forrestor would be that even if I wanted the article I am loth to giving them my data more than giving them my money.

I also suspect that because of this barrier they have fewer customers and then have to charge more for each article.

I would be happy to pay stackoverflow a penny or so per use. But I won't pay them $2 per answer; even if that answer will save me a day's work.

I can't be that far off seeing how many people are willing to do in app purchases.

LOL: Make me "gone" w/ fact (you can't) by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-13 02:02 · Score: 0

Can ublock 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 UBlock doing it as well or at all!

(FACT: U BLOCK YOURSELF for me via your 'fav tools' LACK OF ABILITIES vs. hosts... lol!)

So, that all "said & aside" as fact? Who CARES what YOU WANT?? You fail - & how's it FEEL, to want, whimp??? You lose!

APK

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

For the BEST hosts file?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 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...

+

& It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/... and in its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk32-bit model

Re:LOL: Make me "gone" w/ fact (you can't) by andymadigan · 2015-06-14 07:48 · Score: 1

I'll enjoy watching you continue to shit yourself over this, but this will be my last reply to you (though I'm thinking of making this my sig):

We hereby petition the government of the United States of America to review our proposal for putting Alexander Peter Kowalski (i.e. APK) to death by any means available. This individual is a menace to society and has proven himself to be a drain on the productivity for the millions of IT workers worldwide that spend so much time uncontrollably laughing at APK and his antics. We estimate that this phenomena is costing businesses in the US at least 100 million dollars on an annual basis. Given that APK only has APKTools to justify existence we have no problem recommending him for immediate execution. If at all possible, we would like the execution to be slow and painful.

It's clear your solution can't block ads and annoyances nearly as well as uBlock. I also have no idea why anyone would run an executable made by a bigoted spammer. Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it.

--
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Re:LOL: Make me "gone" w/ fact (you can't) by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 20:41 · Score: 0

projecting your gay anal acts makes it impossible for you to hold a shit andy?
Re:LOL: Make me "gone" w/ fact (you can't) by andymadigan · 2015-06-20 15:19 · Score: 1

Well, as I said in this message, I'm not replying to APK anymore. In the comment above this he suggests he somehow chased me off Slashdot.

It was really fun imagining him typing furiously hoping that somehow his inane rants would anger me. Obviously I managed to piss him off pretty bad. A more thorough effort might actually get him angry enough that his ancient body finally gives out, thus finally freeing us of this bigoted, attention-seeking, spammer.

OTOH, he might feed off this kind of attention, spamming the internet about his shitty software is obviously all he has left in life.

--
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.

LMAO @ U "andy ole' boy"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-13 02:09 · Score: 0

Calling your lame ass OUT, right here bigshot http://apple.slashdot.org/comm...

* :)

(You fail on TONS of grounds... lol!)

There's 16 things UBlock can't do or nearly as well as hosts do, from a far faster/higher cpu priveleged layer of operation that LONG PRECEDES browser addons with their added messagepassing overheads + cpu overuse & added I/O layered over already SLOWER usermode browsers, stupid!

(LOL, you wish I was dead? YOU DIED RIGHT OUTTA THE GATE vainly & effetely *trying* to "take me on" only to FALL FLAT ON YOUR FACE instantly!)

APK

P.S.=> Score = APK 16, Andy "ole' boy" 0 , rotflmao... apk

Re: LMAO @ U "andy ole' boy"... apk by andymadigan · 2015-06-13 05:07 · Score: 1

So I'm supposed to waste CPU cycles and memory on auto-playing videos and screen real estate on pointless toolbars because you think your solution is "better"?

Besides, I'll bet your list includes some sites that I need for work. Oh, your list can't be turned off on a per-site basis without whitelisting that domain everywhere? Maybe that's because it sucks.

At least other ad blockers aren't made by spammers. If you're in the business of making annoying ads why do you make an ad blocker?

--
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Re: LMAO @ U "andy ole' boy"... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 09:01 · Score: 0

Apk didn't get caught lying like you did on ublock andy http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:I love the planitif bleating of the billionaire by jbolden · 2015-06-13 05:05 · Score: 1

If an article that saves you a day's work up front isn't worth $200-2000 much less $2 then you are just too a customer that is too hard to sell to. They make more money from advertising to you then selling you content. The market you are asking for can't exist, it just isn't profitable enough.

The app market mainly exists because:

a) There are small numbers of people paying a lot (either in the commercial space or addicts for in app purchases)
b) There are large numbers of people willing to pay some. But more than you are saying.

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-13 05:18 · Score: 0

See subject: You say bs that does less using more = better?

R O T F L M A O!

http://apple.slashdot.org/comm...

* Run from the COMPLETELY FAIR CHALLENGE put to you in that link - keep it up!

(You're ONLY MAKING MY CASE FOR ME!)

APK

P.S.=> Oh, I promise you this: I am going to have a FIELD DAY on you & your "so-called 'points'", point by SO CALLED 'point' of yours, lol (above & beyond WATCHING YOU FAIL as so many 100's of trolls like yourself have vs. that list alone)... apk

The destruction of andymadigan... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-13 05:40 · Score: 0

"Besides, uBlock is using 33MB of RAM right now" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient vs. hosts @ 6mb only + current data vs. threats + ads (things your bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT HERE http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & hosts doing FAR MORE, with less...)

---

"1) Will it run on my iPad (and no, I'm not jailbreaking)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Yes hosts can, jailbreak it (like on ANDROID too).

---

"2) Can I use it to block annoying "toolbars"?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Don't load toolbars like a dumbass (or use hosts/firewalls to block their content they pull in).

---

"3) Can it be used to defeat modal boxes that try to prevent you from reading articles on various sites?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Stopping javascript does it using what you already HAVE natively (for more speed too) - only FOOLS run that crapscript indiscriminately everywhere!

---

"4) How about the auto-playing video on Bloomberg (and others)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Block out the source if its not the same site (ads served on the same site don't pay, admen don't trust webmasters "alleged" hitcounts is why, & I don't blame 'em).

---

"I can even use it to block the stupid "videos" feature on the Slashdot home page." - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

I do MINUS using your inefficient bs: I stall javascript (&/or cutoff the source of the video via hosts).

APK

P.S.=> You fail - You & "yours", doing STUPID THINGS like "lets bolt on 'MOAR'" increasing overheads & doing LESS from a slower mode of ops too, vs. using what you NATIVELY HAVE THAT IS FAR MORE EFFICIENT & DOES MORE TOO?

Puh-leese: GO BACK TO YOUR HOLE, boy!

...apk

Re:The destruction of andymadigan... apk by andymadigan · 2015-06-13 16:04 · Score: 1

The toolbars on Wikia and auto-playing videos on Bloomberg are served from the same host as the main content. Hosts blocking won't work.

I tried blocking javascript, but I don't feel like spending 5 minutes on every site figuring out which scripts to let through. Besides, uBlock and ghostery stop the worst ones.

As for your "doing less with more" claim: my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock, your system blocks fewer ads and I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does.

As for your other comment that you seem to think I "ran" from (I can barely parse your rants): Why the fuck would a standalone e-mail program need an ad blocker? Do you actually have your e-mail set to allow remote content?

Here's a question, if there's a part of a page I don't like (sidebar, toolbar, "join our mailing list" nag), can your hosts solution let me right click on it and block it forever? No?

Again, why should I trust an adblocker made by a spamvertiser?

--
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.

Witness the destruction of andymadigan by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-13 05:54 · Score: 0

Point by "so-called 'point'" of his vs. myself http://apple.slashdot.org/comm...

* Fool... lol: I love it - you TRY to tell me "how efficient" UBlock is & it EATS 5x as much RAM vs. hosts current data used + you using browser addons creates MORE MESSAGEPASSING OVERHEADS in an already slower mode of operations (usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode), + Ublock DOES LESS by far & YET USES MORE RESOURCES TOO, which you RAN from Forrest, here http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... no less as well!

APK

P.S.=> Ah, yes folks - the "noobz" generation *trying* to "tell me how it is" only to fall, jaw first SPLAT on the pavement immediately/instantly, having to "eat his words" flavored with the bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT thru that busted bigmouth jaw no less, rinsing it down with his FOOT IN HIS MOUTH to "ram it down", lmao... apk

Apple ad blocking by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-13 13:32 · Score: 0

I'll buy it. I hate pop up ads.

Bwahahaha: Memory & MORE got ya stupid! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-13 16:34 · Score: 0

Yes, bigtime, by over 5++ times worth -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... chump...

See subject!

THIS TAKES THE CAKE FROM YOU STUPID:

"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

Ah, "moving the goalposts" now are we? No biggie, time to SMOKE you yet again stupid!

Take a read (on WHY I call it "almost ALL ads blocked" by default):

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it

+

AdBlock's '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).

AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...

---

"Again, why should I trust an adblocker made by a spamvertiser?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above, & below, dumbo - & learn to THINK before you speak, fool (let's see a MENIAL like YOU, do better, ok?):

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/... and in its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

APK

P.S.=> Since I've COOKED YOUR DUMB ASS TOTALLY yet again? Did you actually *think* you'd "get away" with posting HOURS later, & that I wouldn't see it and BLAST YOUR ASS again?? Wrong... & above ALL else here perhaps - moving the goalposts attempts shown above only let me SMOKE YOU TOTALLY yet again, dumbo... apk

Andymadigan "illogic logic" illustrated... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-13 17:16 · Score: 0

Adblock does less & consumes more = "better", Andy? http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & THAT is why you "RAN" vs. that, Forrest!

Fact:

You can't even BEGIN to combat the facts there in favor of hosts files over "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" or its variants on TONS of levels in efficiency, speed, & abilities!

PLUS?

Later - I utterly SCORCHED your adblock PAID SHILL ASS on memory consumption too -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm...

AND

THEN even MORE here too later -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

After that LAST link?

Tell us WHAT BLOCKS MORE ADS, Andy "ole' boy"? Ok?? Good luck... & learn to read: My earlier posts contain the data shown below on THAT note also!

APK

P.S.=> Your "solution" in AdBlock is PAID OFF BY GOOGLE & OTHERS TO NOT BLOCK ALL ADS BY DEFAULT, stupid:

AdBlock & ABP = crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

You UNBELIEVABLE obviously PAID SHILL for that shitbox of a program "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" or its fellow shitbox inefficient variants like ABP or UBlock...

UFail is more like it after the above, lol... badly! apk

Re:I love the planitif bleating of the billionaire by EmperorOfCanada · 2015-06-13 17:17 · Score: 1

The article cost problem is much like the computer book problem that I had in the days that I bought computer books. Nearly all computer books suck. Thus for every 20 computer books I bought maybe 1 really did it for me.

Thus I would much prefer sifting through stackoverflow at a small but steady burn instead of the probable rip off at a higher price. So while any given article might save me a pile of money most would be a waste of money.

Netflix is also a betterish model to compare to. Their cost to provide me Netflix is low. Thus they charge me far less than the stupid and dying networks/cable companies. I would be happy spending lots of little money instead of the occasional gouge.

Adblock's crippled by default by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-13 17:38 · Score: 0

Paid to not block ALL ads http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

AND

ClarityRay defeats it also (adblock, being a mere inefficient browser addon IS also easily detected for & blocked by NATIVE BROWSER METHODS sites can leverage to dump them out for them & to TELL THEM TO BLOCK YOU OUT instead of them blocking ads, stupid!) - they CANNOT do THAT, to hosts that way, period.

Bribery Andy - you trust THAT shitbox AdBlock & its variants after that?

APK

P.S.=> AndyMadigan: You truly ARE too stupid to live, OR, you're a PAID SHILL for "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (guess all that GOOGLE + AMAZON BRIBE MONEY GOES A LONG WAYS THERE, eh Andy? LOL!)... apk

33mb more than 6mb in hosts... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-13 23:24 · Score: 0

"Besides, uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb here only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )

---

"1) Will it run on my iPad (and no, I'm not jailbreaking)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Sure hosts can: jailbreak it (like on ANDROID via ADB use).

---

"2) Can I use it to block annoying "toolbars" that sites cover 20% of their content with (e.g. Wikia)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Sure - don't load toolbars dumbass (or use hosts or firewalls to block their content they pull in) OR DON'T USE SHITHOLES LIKE 'EM (I don't - they're blocked due to what you said).

---

"3) Can it be used to defeat modal boxes" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Stopping javascript does it - using what you already HAVE natively (for more speed too) - only FOOLS run that crapscript indiscriminately everywhere! Opera allows it via "by site" preferences in 12.17 64-bit for instance.

---

"4) How about the auto-playing video" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Easy - block a source if not the same site (ads served on the same site don't pay, admen don't trust webmasters "alleged" hitcounts & I don't blame 'em).

---

"I can even use it to block the stupid "videos" feature on the Slashdot" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Again - Stall javascript (or cut video sources via hosts).

APK

P.S.=> You fail - You do STUPID THINGS "bolting on 'MOAR'" increasing overheads & doing LESS off a slower mode of ops vs. using what you NATIVELY HAVE THAT'S MORE EFFICIENT & DOES MORE TOO...apk

Adblock variants suck vs. hosts w/ proof by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-13 23:52 · Score: 0

"Besides, uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb here only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )

---

"1) Will it run on my iPad (and no, I'm not jailbreaking)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Sure hosts can: jailbreak it (like on ANDROID via ADB use).

---

"2) Can I use it to block annoying "toolbars" that sites cover 20% of their content with (e.g. Wikia)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Sure - don't load toolbars dumbass (or use hosts or firewalls to block their content they pull in) OR DON'T USE SHITHOLES LIKE 'EM (I don't - they're blocked due to what you said).

---

"3) Can it be used to defeat modal boxes" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Stopping javascript does it - using what you already HAVE natively (for more speed too) - only FOOLS run that crapscript indiscriminately everywhere! Opera allows it via "by site" preferences in 12.17 64-bit for instance.

---

"4) How about the auto-playing video" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Easy - block a source if not the same site (ads served on the same site don't pay, admen don't trust webmasters "alleged" hitcounts & I don't blame 'em) or use better sites.

---

"I can even use it to block the stupid "videos" feature on the Slashdot" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Again - Stall javascript (or cut video sources via hosts).

APK

P.S.=> You fail - You do STUPID THINGS "bolting on 'MOAR'" increasing overheads & doing LESS off a slower mode of ops vs. using what you NATIVELY HAVE THAT'S MORE EFFICIENT & DOES MORE TOO...apk

Andymadigan "illogic logic" proofs, lol... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 00:18 · Score: 0

"Besides, uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb here only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )

---

"1) Will it run on my iPad (and no, I'm not jailbreaking)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Sure hosts can: jailbreak it (like on ANDROID via ADB use).

---

"2) Can I use it to block annoying "toolbars" that sites cover 20% of their content with (e.g. Wikia)?" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Sure - don't load toolbars dumbass (or use hosts or firewalls to block their content they pull in) OR DON'T USE SHITHOLES LIKE 'EM (I don't - they're blocked due to what you said).

---

"3) Can it be used to defeat modal boxes" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Stopping javascript does it - using what you already HAVE natively (for more speed too) - only FOOLS run that crapscript indiscriminately everywhere! Opera allows it via "by site" preferences in 12.17 64-bit for instance.

---

"4) How about the auto-playing video" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Easy - block a source if not the same site (ads served on the same site don't pay, admen don't trust webmasters "alleged" hitcounts & I don't blame 'em) or use better sites.

---

"I can even use it to block the stupid "videos" feature on the Slashdot" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Again - Stall javascript (or cut video sources via hosts).

APK

P.S.=> You fail - You do STUPID THINGS "bolting on 'MOAR'" increasing overheads & doing LESS off a slower mode of ops vs. using what you NATIVELY HAVE THAT'S MORE EFFICIENT & DOES MORE TOO...apk

Re:I love the planitif bleating of the billionaire by jbolden · 2015-06-14 00:24 · Score: 1

That's a subscription model not a lowish per article model. With a few exceptions like Wall Street Journal (and even theirs is starting to fail) most sites don't have content uniquely good enough to keep subscribers. As you get more specialized it works. Certainly that model works but the cost per user is high not low.

Go write AIDSBlock Andy (you need it, lol) by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 08:02 · Score: 0

See subject: Why're you avoiding your fuckups list here?

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )

---

"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" is PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default, dumbo -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above & a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR with less & you RAN from it bitch - see 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does." by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

Ah, so you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid? LOL, ok!

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it - it can't do that to hosts (since clarityray dumps what browser addons you use so addons are EASILY DETECTED via native browser methods & YOU'RE BLOCKED STUPID).

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

APK

P.S.=> You've GOT to be the MOST STUPIDLY illogical moron I've *ever* met on /. ...

... apk"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock"

AndyMadigan FAILS, resorts to "illogic logic" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 08:27 · Score: 0

See subject: Ad hominem attacks? Puh-leese, lol: Jay Little of arstechnica posted that, after I ANNIHILATED HIM over @ Windows IT Pro publicly in front of the planet ( & He literally CLAIMED to be "an expert on Exchange")!

Some expert!

Yes - that's when I pointed out that memory optimization programs UNSTALL halted exchange servers USING MICROSOFT'S OWN DOCUMENTATION TO PROVE IT!

LMAO - & he literally RAN, lol... thanks for that GREAT memory, as I have constantly ANNIHILATED arstechnica dimwits over time!

Yes - just as I have yourself (see link below you avoid which consolidates your stupid fuckups galore vs. myself).

Suggestion (lmao):

Go write "AIDSBlock" AndyMadigan - LORD KNOWS YOU NEED IT -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

(After all - YOU'RE AN ADMITTED GENETIC ABERRATION & ABNORMAL + quite "sensitive" about it, aren't you, "Mr. Flimsy Wrist SanFran Man", lmao? Guess that comes from KNOWING you "ain't right", eh? Absolutely!)

APK

P.S.=> Plus - Why do you keep avoiding your "FAILS" list here stupid http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Hmmm?

Was I right that your "affliction" & 'StRaNgE' genetic aberration driven lifestyle has addled your brain with the blatant illogic logic you use that facts I did you in with point out clearly?? Yes... apk

AndyMadigan why'd you LIE about UBlock? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 08:56 · Score: 0

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Lies Andy? UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

* Man, not ONLY are you a twisted freak (gay), but you're a DAMNED LIAR too!

APK

P.S.=> However, the BEST part is your "ultimate fuckups list" here (which the above WILL be added to for 'future reference' vs. your BULLSHIT lies) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... &

That is WHY you had to resort to illogic logic & failed ad hominem attack attempts vs. myself!

Fact is, & you prove it?

Yes - you're too STUPID to even *try* to "take me on" & you FAILED - you're reactions & running from points I put out prove it... lol, I absolutely LOVE it! apk

Why'd you LIE on Ublock ram use Andy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 09:33 · Score: 0

UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

* Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!

APK'

P.S.=> I personally have a 4 million line hosts file (took me 15++ yrs as an experiment for HOW FAR I CAN PUSH IT) - however:

Folks using my program will only have a 3-6mb one with CURRENT DATA ONLY in it!

(They can 'build it up' IF they like though, as I have but NOT TO THAT EXTENT, if they're smart... I am only doing mine as an experiment LONG TERM... you can & should ''purge" it once in a bit to be more accurate - my app provides means for it too via pings OR remove lists from my sources for hosts data).

In the end Andy?

YOU will ALWAYS LOSE to me!

Heck:

YOUR LIES SHOWN ABOVE do the job for me, along with your MASSIVE FUCKUPS LIST vs. myself, SHOWN HERE -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... do the rest... apk

Andymadigan: Why'd you lie on UBlock ram use? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 09:35 · Score: 0

UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

* Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!

APK'

P.S.=> I personally have a 4 million line hosts file (took me 15++ yrs as an experiment for HOW FAR I CAN PUSH IT) - however:

Folks using my program will only have a 3-6mb one with CURRENT DATA ONLY in it!

(They can 'build it up' IF they like though, as I have but NOT TO THAT EXTENT, if they're smart... I am only doing mine as an experiment LONG TERM... you can & should ''purge" it once in a bit to be more accurate - my app provides means for it too via pings OR remove lists from my sources for hosts data).

In the end Andy?

YOU will ALWAYS LOSE to me!

Heck:

YOUR LIES SHOWN ABOVE do the job for me, along with your MASSIVE FUCKUPS LIST vs. myself, SHOWN HERE -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... do the rest... apk

Andymadigan "classic fails" list vs. apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 20:22 · Score: 0

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )

Lies Andy? UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!

---

"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" is PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default, dumbo -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above & a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR with less & you RAN from it bitch - see 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does." by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

Ah, so you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid? LOL, ok!

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it - it can't do that to hosts (since clarityray dumps what browser addons you use so addons are EASILY DETECTED via native browser methods & YOU'RE BLOCKED STUPID).

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

APK

P.S.=> You've GOT to be the MOST STUPIDLY illogical moron I've *ever* met on /. ...

... apk

andymadigan "classic fail list" vs. apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 20:32 · Score: 0

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )

Lies Andy? UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!

---

"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" is PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default, dumbo -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above & a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR with less & you RAN from it bitch - see 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does." by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

Ah, so you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid? LOL, ok!

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it - it can't do that to hosts (since clarityray dumps what browser addons you use so addons are EASILY DETECTED via native browser methods & YOU'RE BLOCKED STUPID).

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

APK

P.S.=> You've GOT to be the MOST STUPIDLY illogical moron I've *ever* met on /. ...

... apk

andymadigan "classic fail list" vs. apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 20:33 · Score: 0

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )

Lies Andy? UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!

---

"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" is PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default, dumbo -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above & a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR with less & you RAN from it bitch - see 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does." by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

Ah, so you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid? LOL, ok!

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it - it can't do that to hosts (since clarityray dumps what browser addons you use so addons are EASILY DETECTED via native browser methods & YOU'RE BLOCKED STUPID).

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

APK

P.S.=> You've GOT to be the MOST STUPIDLY illogical moron I've *ever* met on /. ...

... apk

andymadigan "classic fail list" vs. apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 20:35 · Score: 0

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )

Lies Andy? UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!

---

"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" is PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default, dumbo -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above & a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR with less & you RAN from it bitch - see 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does." by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

Ah, so you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid? LOL, ok!

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it - it can't do that to hosts (since clarityray dumps what browser addons you use so addons are EASILY DETECTED via native browser methods & YOU'RE BLOCKED STUPID).

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

APK

P.S.=> You've GOT to be the MOST STUPIDLY illogical moron I've *ever* met on /. ...

... apkb

Andymadigan "classic fail list" vs. apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-14 20:38 · Score: 0

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb only w/ CURRENT data vs. threats + ads (& things a bloated browser addon can't do by a longshot & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )

Lies Andy? UBlock consume 63++ MB http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SPECIFICALLY IN THIS SCREENSHOT THERE -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

Man, you're a DAMNED LIAR!

---

"my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" is PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default, dumbo -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

See above & a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR with less & you RAN from it bitch - see 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does." by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

Ah, so you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid? LOL, ok!

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it - it can't do that to hosts (since clarityray dumps what browser addons you use so addons are EASILY DETECTED via native browser methods & YOU'RE BLOCKED STUPID).

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

APK

P.S.=> You've GOT to be the MOST STUPIDLY illogical moron I've *ever* met on /. ...

... apk

Google's going to have a tough time by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-15 09:24 · Score: 0

"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)

See subject: Explaining away multiple PROOFS my ware is COMPLETELY CLEAN/FREE of infestations OR exploits in it:

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently!

In BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

and

Also in its 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

* :)

In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels (which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)?

I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it? YOU DID, homo!

(Look Andy - I knew your hemmorhoids are acting up due to your "StRaNgE" practices, lol, so it's making you a "wee bit cranky" there 'spanky'... but, don't take it out on me that you're an ABNORMAL weirdo, ok?)

Your "migration to San Francisco"? LOL, obvious now WHY You made it... to go "Where the Boys are..." ala Connie Francis, albeit in YOUR case, to be a fruit with "Lots of pickins" (ugh, disgusting).

APK

P.S.=> Besides "Andy Ole' Boy" - you obviously *LOVE* getting "ass raped", since I certainly RAMMED IT HOME ON YOU, lol, REPEATEDLY HERE (due to your stupid errors in technicals) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but it's obvious you LIKE it, now don't ya, freak? Yes, you do (sick weirdo) - but you only brought it on yourself, queer-do... apk

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-15 23:46 · Score: 0

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 6mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads (& things adblock variants can't do & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says it best (& I didn't do the saying of it!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

Above shows a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR w/ less & you RAN from it in 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does." by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

So you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & can't to hosts (clarityray makes browser addons EASILY DETECTED + BLOCKED via native browser methods).

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

APK

P.S.=> Quoting Howard Stark from "Captain America" regarding hosts (Captain America's Vibranium Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight..." - Howard Stark

(LITERALLY & THEN SOME!)

... apk

"Stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-16 00:03 · Score: 0

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads (& things adblock variants can't do & you RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ) test yourself using my program.

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See subject + 'p.s.' below - Says it best (& I didn't do the saying!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID OFF to NOT block all ads by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

Above shows otherise that a 'shitty idea' does MORE BY FAR w/ less & you RAN from it - 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

So you're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it & can't to hosts (clarityray makes browser addons DETECTED + BLOCKED via native browser methods).

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

APK

P.S.=> Quoting Howard Stark from "Captain America" - hosts (Captain America's Vibranium Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight" - Howard Stark

(LITERALLY & THEN SOME!)

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

Weblock and other iOS adblocker apps by Lord+Satri · 2015-06-16 07:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm a bit late to comment, but haven't found any mention in the threads. There are existing adblockers for iOS that work fine, and they work not just for browsing, but for other apps as well, pretty useful!

--
Animoog.org

It's been a week & andymadigan ran... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-20 01:27 · Score: 0

See subject: I'm enjoying running you out of /. via http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

FACT:

You brought in on yourself queerdo, by starting up with myself here http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... AND here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

(Much to your obvious dismay seeing how I spanked you completely @ EVERY TURN & you RAN "Forrest!)

Stupid of you even *thinking* you could match wits with me, much less technical know-how, noob! The results speak for themselves... bye bye, flamer - & GOOD riddance!

APK

P.S.=> I absolutely LOVE results like these, especially against the genetically deranged like andymadigan - who "oddly enough" works for CLOUDWORDS, an advertiser/advertiser-marketer partner (nothing "odd" about that @ all, other than andy's "oddness" being gay - they HATE anything that stops them in their tracks & THAT is why "Raggedy Andy" the fag tried to mess with me, again, obviously as to his "motivations" - too bad it got him shot down in flames!))... apk

LMAO - Knew that'd "get a rise" outta you! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-21 00:04 · Score: 0

Eat your words #1 http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Eat your words #2 http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* Additionally: Like I said before - I know YOU better than YOU KNOW YOURSELF... lol, "pushing your buttons" & getting a rise outta you? Even EASIER than annihilating you in those 2 links above... lol!

APK

P.S.=> I suppose you can't help it - you're more of a WOMAN than a woman is, being "what you are" (genetic aberration/mistake) & what-not, but it's always PRICELESS even above those 2 links above where I shot you down & to pieces easily vs. your "so-called 'points'", seeing you "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. this as you & "your kind" always DO Mr. Advertiser from CLOUDWORDS -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm...

... apk

Re:LMAO - Knew that'd "get a rise" outta you! by andymadigan · 2015-06-21 14:04 · Score: 1

You're still wrong, and your arguments are non-sensical. Oh, and your software sucks, and your ideas suck.

I am not an advertiser, I'm an engineer. I don't work for advertisers, and my job has nothing to do with ads. I hate ads, including yours.

I'm not sure why you're so fixated on my sexual orientation, other than perhaps psychosis or repression. Either way, I'll enjoy dancing on your grave. I'll even put on a pride flag on it for you.

--
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.

A PhD agrees w/ me on hosts andymadigan by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-22 01:40 · Score: 0

See subject & http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

WHAT'VE YOU GOT BY WAY OF COMPARISON? Ok:

* ANSWER = Your utter self-destruction, point by "so-called 'point'" of yours, torn apart with verifiable concrete facts & analysis proofs here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

AND here too -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... :)

---

"You're still wrong, and your arguments are non-sensical. Oh, and your software sucks, and your ideas suck." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 21, 2015 @10:04PM (#49959191)

Spoken like a petulant crying homo who LOST AGAIN vs. myself & concrete facts I use, as usual, lol... Hey:

My ideas and creations are better than *ANYTHING* you've got you can show us you've done, that's certain (see above, lol)... AND?

In fact?

Some pretty impressive & well-known others in this field say otherwise about my work, recommending it + hosting it!

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

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

The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-26 17:00 · Score: 0

"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

Inefficient: Hosts @ 3mb-11mb current data vs. threats/ads (+ does things adblock(s) can't & U RAN vs. it http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... )

UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

Screenshot -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

* See 'p.s.' below - Says it all (& I didn't say it!)

---

"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID to NOT block all ads by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

&

AB+ too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

UBlock/AdBlock variants = Less efficient on CPU & RAM (adding messagepass overhead in SLOW usermode vs. hosts in fast kernelmode) & NONE do a fraction of what hosts do for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

---

"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

Above shows different & hosts do MORE BY FAR w/ less & U RAN vs. it - 1st link above!

---

"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid Mr. CLOUDWORDS Advertiser (Marketo affiliate)?

Hosts = better & do FULLY work vs. ads (cutting YOUR MONEY): I see you/you're exposed.

AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

ClarityRay defeats it, not hosts (via native browser methods).

APK

P.S.=> Quote Howard Stark from "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock etc (steel):

"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

... apk

The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-06-26 17:01 · Score: 0

"Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)

Google's going to have a tough time explaining multiple PROOFS below that my ware's COMPLETELY CLEAN:

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

* :)

In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

(which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)

I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?

YOU DID, Mr. Advertiser homo that works @ CLOUDWORDS (Marketo affiliate) - small wonder you hate things like hosts that actually WORK blocking ads (unlike bribed almostalladsblocked)!

You failed badly on all accounts.

APK

P.S.=> Besides "Andy Ole' Boy" - you obviously *LOVE* getting "ass raped" like the twisted homo you are, since I certainly RAMMED IT HOME ON YOU, lol, REPEATEDLY HERE (due to your stupid errors in technicals) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - you only brought it on yourself... apk

Slashdot Mirror

iOS 9 To Have Ad Blocking Capabilities

161 comments