Slashdot Mirror


Adblock Plus Reduces University's Network Traffic By 25 Percent

Mickeycaskill writes: Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada claims it cut 25% of its network traffic (40% of video traffic) by deploying Adblock Plus across its internal network. The study tested the ability of the Adblock Plus browser extension (PDF) in reducing IP traffic when installed in a large enterprise network environment, and found that huge amounts of data transfer were saved by blocking web-based advertisements and video trailers. The experiment was carried out over a period of six weeks. Disclaimer: the study was funded by Adblock Plus.

327 comments

  1. I believe it... by dark.nebulae · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even though it's funded by adblock, I still believe it. May not be such high percentages, but it will certainly take a measurable chunk away.

    Individual sites cry foul because they cannot meet their advertising targets affecting their revenue, but from the point of view of the user that is active on the net they are bombarded by advertising. Stripping even 10% away can be a good thing...

    1. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      We block advertising at the web proxy on our corporate network, and the savings is substantial, easily 25% when I look at the traffic reports/dashboards. Never mind protection from a malware vector, the improved browsing experience and network relief makes ad blocking a no brainer.

    2. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...and if you're on a not unlimited cell data plan any savings is also great...

    3. Re:I believe it... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      I am all for adds in websites... However many of them had became too intrusive, to take up so much bandwidth, or chew up too much cpu power to make it worth it.

      Adds should be relative to the content of the site/page, they should be clearly marked as adds, they in total should not take up more then 20% of the total sites resources. (Bandwidth, CPU, screen real estate... )

      I get it, a site offers service free of charge, so they use some space for advertising... I get that. However the goal is to get you to the adds by whatever means necessary, or the add company hijacks the site, then it goes too far.

      We watch TV we expect a 3 minute Commercial slot every 12 minutes. It is clear that it is a commercial. When stations go too far. people stop watching that station, as too much of the show is cutoff.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that advertisers and publishers have become so disconnected from reality...

      How many times have you visited a web-page, and 1-3 videos or animating ads show up? Every day? Welcome to reality.

      Then you have interstitial ads. Who in the right mind is going to continue to the website content if they have to sit through an ad.

      Step back from the brink. Go back to IMAGE-only or Text-Only ads and make sure those ads are reflective of the content. Video ads belong nowhere except as pre-rolls before LONG video content.

    5. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but when your paying for a service such as cable should you still have commercials?

    6. Re:I believe it... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gotta agree here, big-time. Even my own impromptu testing with AdBlock on/off shows that, as an example, roughly 20-30% of Facebook's packets carry advertisements to my browser. Sites like /. have the percentage down to something like 10% or so, personal and fringe sites maybe 5%, and at the other end, any ZDNet/CNET owned website blasts out soemthing like 25-35%. Don't ask what tomshardware.com and the gaming websites throw at you...

      While it's nothing more than an annoyance on my home machinery, I know that when I'm tethered, it makes a *huge* effing difference in data usage. I have it firmly installed on my mobile for just this reason.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    7. Re:I believe it... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Should say - I have it installed both on my laptop and my mobile.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:I believe it... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Students were again instructed to mimic surfing to a designated basket of URLs (Table I) as they might perform research for a paper, casual surfing (news). They were required to spend at least 5 - 15 minutes on each site.

      Table 1: Basket of URLs Visited
      youtube.com
      bild.de
      gamestar.de
      cnn.com
      shopping.com
      bloomberg.com
      spiegel.de
      ebay.com
      nytimes.com
      mashable.com
      yahoo.com
      huffingtonpost.com
      digg.com
      washingtonpost.com
      reddit.com
      abcnews.go.com
      buzzfeed.com
      cbs.com
      yelp.com
      espn.com
      msn.com
      dailymail.co.uk
      skysports.com
      imgur.com
      imdb.com
      techcrunch.com
      alibaba.com
      reuters.com
      cnet.com
      thesun.co.uk
      stackoverflow.com
      bbc.com

      Phase II of the testing was conducted from March 15, 2015 to May 1, 2015 with 103 students participating. Phase II revealed some interesting results. For the purposes of analysis, we selected two computers with the most web traffic, one with Adblock Plus (Computer Y) and one without any ad-blocking technology (Computer S).

      That's an interesting test methodology and a highly questionable way to cherry pick analyze 2 weeks worth of data.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:I believe it... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are few things that bug me more than a page load delay waiting for an ad url to respond.

    10. Re:I believe it... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      How's that going to work once most everything is HTTPS?

    11. Re: I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh what makes you think they can't read HTTPS traffic on their own network?

    12. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take the average clickbait on FB, "You will be astounded about what...":

      First, if you are using iOS, you get to view the site for 1-2 seconds before getting dumped to the App Store to download some POS F2P/P2W game clone.

      Once you get past that or on a computer, you might get about 1/4 a screen of content before having to click "next".

      Of course, there are the exploits. Last time I viewed a certain social network site in a virtual machine without AdBlock, it took a total of 10 minutes before the machine got slammed with malware (as in toolbars in the browser, full screen popups demanding you download a scanning utility, a loopback VPN added with a bogus master CA key installed.)

      Ads are the primary vector for infection, and advertisers/ad networks don't care. Because of this, I block for security reasons. It is OK to have a text ad for a webpage. It is not OK to throw malware, and in fact highly illegal, but because it is hard to prove, the parties responsible get away with it.

    13. Re:I believe it... by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 5, Funny

      I banned Powerpoint presentations. Saves huge amounts of time, and server space. I don't have figures to support it, but I strongly believe it raises moral and stops a decline in general intelligence.

    14. Re:I believe it... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      There are few things that bug me more than a page load delay waiting for an ad url to respond.

      or when the page formatting isn't set up right and when it renders it pops the browser view around. hm, I suppose the browser window could be modified to detect this stabilize keep the view ...

    15. Re:I believe it... by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      I banned Powerpoint presentations. Saves huge amounts of time, and server space. I don't have figures to support it, but I strongly believe it raises moral and stops a decline in general intelligence.

      (grin)

      Actually, the problem isn't Powerpoint or presentations. The problem is people who do not know how to create or give good presentations.

      Most boring presentations fall into the following categories:

      1. a presentation that you are forced to attend but that has no direct relevance to you, your job, etc.
      2. a presentation with too many details for the time slot. The Presenter speed reads the presentation
      3. a presentation where the presenter just reads the presentation. There are no explanations and no expansion on what appears on the slides. You could have just read the presentation in 10 minutes and gotten the same information.
      4. a presentation that has not been tailored to the audience.

      If you have ever watched a Ted Talk presentation, you will see that they use Powerpoint. The difference is that you are interested in the topic, the presenter is passionate about the topic and tells a story, and the slides include just the major points, they don't go into too much detail.

      Oh... and banning Powerpoint just wouldn't work... They would just use Word or, horrors, Excel.... (grin)

    16. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How's that going to work once most everything is HTTPS?

      MITM at the gateway/proxy. This is mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley act in the US, and is likely imposed by US corporations in other jurisdictions.

      Don't assume that https will hide anything from your corporate masters. Every large US corporation issues its own certificates, and are recognized as CAs by the authorized browsers. If the OS image is installed by the company, then those certificates and the CA that goes with them are recognized by the browser (don't even think about deleting them).

      The way it works is like any other MITM attack - the browser asks for an encryption token from the gateway/proxy, and the gateway/proxy supplies one, then asks for a corresponding encryption token from the server you're trying to reach. The result is that everything is decrypted to cleartext at the gateway/proxy (as required by law in the US), then re-encrypted for your browser.

    17. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that advertisers and publishers have become so disconnected from reality...

      How many times have you visited a web-page, and 1-3 videos or animating ads show up? Every day? Welcome to reality.

      Then you have interstitial ads. Who in the right mind is going to continue to the website content if they have to sit through an ad.

      Step back from the brink. Go back to IMAGE-only or Text-Only ads and make sure those ads are reflective of the content. Video ads belong nowhere except as pre-rolls before LONG video content.

      Yep, even ol' Slashdot here usually has one or two video ads on the main page, and the top story is practically hemmed in by either video ads, animated banner ads or something else obnoxious (right now on the main page I count seven banner ads (two top, two bottom, and two sidebar), and one video ad (that's having trouble loading), and that's not even including the Slashdot Video sections). The mix changes some, and I've seen as many as three autoplaying video ads (with audio!) on the main page at the same time. Until advertising gets less obnoxious, I have no compunction about using an adblocker.

    18. Re:I believe it... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      LOL. As if web proxies have issues with https anymore.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    19. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was doing a speedtest and was unable to get above ~45mbps on my 100mbps connection. I installed adblock and suddenly was getting the full 100mbps. There were so many flash ads on speedtest.net that the test system (Core i5, 4gb RAM, Windows 7, latest flash updates) was unable to do the test properly in multiple browsers.

      So I agree some cases sites have taken things way too far. If you run so many ads that I cannot use my system or connection completely there is a problem.

    20. Re:I believe it... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      HTTPS proxies are also massive security holes, it break authentication. Trading one evil for another. The most recent OpenSSL bug that was declared a huge security issue is pretty much what HTTPS proxies do. Blindly forwarding traffic from the Internet and signing it.

    21. Re:I believe it... by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      I banned Powerpoint presentations. Saves huge amounts of time, and server space. I don't have figures to support it, but I strongly believe it raises moral and stops a decline in general intelligence.

      (grin)

      Actually, the problem isn't Powerpoint or presentations. The problem is people who do not know how to create or give good presentations.

      Agreed. It's the wasted time that bites. IMO the worst offenders spend too much time preparing it (which hasn't been a problem for years). Then there are those that create Powerpoint presentations which should have just been written documents - which they could have emailed me (no Powerpoint on my computers). In which case I would have just read it and the meeting would become redundant. As a general rule I won't go to presentations unless they've sent me something that explained the presentation first - that also allows me to research the subject. When I do go it's because I want to ask questions - and I make a point of sending them the questions before I go.

      Most boring presentations fall into the following categories:

      1. a presentation that you are forced to attend but that has no direct relevance to you, your job, etc. 2. a presentation with too many details for the time slot. The Presenter speed reads the presentation 3. a presentation where the presenter just reads the presentation. There are no explanations and no expansion on what appears on the slides. You could have just read the presentation in 10 minutes and gotten the same information. 4. a presentation that has not been tailored to the audience.

      If you have ever watched a Ted Talk presentation, you will see that they use Powerpoint. The difference is that you are interested in the topic, the presenter is passionate about the topic and tells a story, and the slides include just the major points, they don't go into too much detail.

      Oh... and banning Powerpoint just wouldn't work... They would just use Word or, horrors, Excel.... (grin)

      Spreadsheets go in the big round grey filing cabinet unless they actually do math - often followed by the "writer"'s chances of an extended contract. Though usually I try and educate them first "we have these things called databases - have you heard of them? Did you know that Word includes tables?". My rule of the thumb is a document shouldn't take longer to write than the sum total of the time taken by all the recipients to read it - if it does it's either badly written or should have been professionally written.

      Why do so many point and click MS Office/LibreOffice clown think they're a writer and/or a publisher? Quite often they're otherwise smart people - yet they assume they don't need to spend the time and effort that professional writers and publishers do to learnt the craft.

      I find presentations are good for sales (which I don't do) - and it's also a reason why I'm wary of them. They're useful for getting people to visualise things - but if it involves precision or concepts I greatly prefer the written word. Presentations are also logistical challenges to organise (like bloody teleconferences). I find it more efficient to try and train people to learn how to use email properly ("no really it's not like electronic postcards - learn to interleave when appropriate").

      There are some TED talks I've enjoyed - but most I'd prefer to have in written form.

    22. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I'd cut their numbers in half and consider that to be a realistic count.

      Now if someone can fix the bug on sites like veetle that spam you, no lie, 90000 adds in the span of 30 seconds, crippling your system AND video stream until you refresh, then when the next scheduled add comes, it starts again.

      It appears from my perspective that adblock is blocking the ad, the ad server somehow detects this, and spams ALL of the ads on the internet until you either disable adblock, or refresh the page and wait another 5 minutes.

    23. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is. We live in a rural area, use 4G wireless and have small bandwith limits or we pay overages. Each autoplaying video can buffer 2-5MB in a few seconds before you can stop it. Blocking videos and large flash ads is a must have likely have saved us hundreds of dollars over 3 or 4 years.

    24. Re:I believe it... by ne0n · · Score: 1

      Adblock on mobile should be an OEM feature. It saves at least 25% based on the few times I wiped/installed a new rom and forgot to Adblock.
      An easy experiment if you're masochistic is to enable your ad blocking proxy on cell data but not on wifi. Watch the stats. If you're on Android it's easy to see the data savings pile up.

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    25. Re:I believe it... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Even though it's funded by adblock, I still believe it. May not be such high percentages, but it will certainly take a measurable chunk away.

      So you're saying that you believe that making fewer requests for less content results in less traffic? It's good that you believe that, now I will believe it also. I didn't want to be the only one.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    26. Re:I believe it... by chihowa · · Score: 2

      Actually, the problem isn't Powerpoint or presentations. The problem is people who do not know how to create or give good presentations.

      The simplest rule of thumb is to minimize the number of words on the slides. It keeps the presenter and the audience from just reading the slides and forces the presenter to actually engage with the audience.

      If they removed the ability to insert text into Powerpoint slides, the workplace would instantly become a better place. (Really, people would just paste Word documents into slides or use more of those stupid clipart icons, but it would be better for one stupid meeting's worth.)

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    27. Re:I believe it... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Local news sites have been some of the worst for me. I found one site that told my browser to keep downloading some resource from an ad network (no idea what it was) as long as the window was open, I just happened to have network tools open to see it. By the time I finished reading the story and closed the page the browser had downloaded tens of MB.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    28. Re:I believe it... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      MITM at the gateway/proxy. This is mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley act [wikipedia.org] in the US, and is likely imposed by US corporations in other jurisdictions.

      Can you expand on that? What part of SOX specifically requires a MITM gateway/proxy for https connections?

    29. Re:I believe it... by ZenDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can vouch for this as well. I monitor traffic from my linux router/firewall and have noticed significant decreases in over all bandwidth utilization with ad blockers enabled in the range of 25/35% depending on what I'm doing. Although I use Disconnect and/or uBlock ,as Ad Block Plus is a bit more of a resource hog. During my normal pointless browsing sessions, when Im not doing anything work related and just following click bait for mindless entertainment. I noticed a roughly 20% directly attributed to video ads. This is much less when I am doing something work or hobby related as I generally avoid the news sites and stick to forums and technical sites for information. That said, even some of my regular favorites *cough* Slashdot *cough* have started getting worse with the ads. Fortunately unlike most sites as a long time registered user, /. allows me to disable the ad's.

      For the record; I have NEVER in my life clicked an ad from a website that resulted in a purchase. I have only a handful of times, made purchases from email blasts when good deals were presented. Once from Tigerdirect, some from NewEgg during black friday deals, a couple times from REI, and once for a viagra, JUST KIDDING! :D I simply can not imagine how truly successful that style of advertising is successful when 99 out of 100 people I talk to about it say they hate it and avoid clicking that crap, on principle, because it is so annoying.

    30. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or when you sit through a flawlessly streamed unskippable 720p advert video only to get to a broken stuttery buffering 240p *that you actually requested*. ...and then you reload the page to try again and get the same advert.

      BTW CariDee suffers from psoriasis and St Jude is looking for donations.

    31. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try blocking player.ooyala.com on slashdot. Makes this site a lot faster.

    32. Re:I believe it... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Speaking of cherry picking, you excluded the sentence immediately following the list of sites:

      After reviewing the data, it became clear that a
      more rigorous test was required in order to fully
      evaluate the effectiveness of the browser extension.

      Then a little bit later they say

      the presence of different testing
      periods reduced the comparability of the with and
      without-Adblock Plus data sets. Asynchronous
      testing was therefore rejected in favour of
      synchronous testing.

      So they proposed a test, performed the test, and analyzed the test realizing that it wasn't adequate. And then stated that they did that. While the test ended up being questionable (and should have been questionable anyways) it sounds pretty close to a basic research to me.

      All the data was from 6 weeks of testing (as you quoted) by 103 students on those websites. While it's still questionable limiting to those sites, those also are most of the most popular social media and mainstream media websites. I think a better test would have been to segment a single general-usage lab or maybe two labs with equal usage into blind groups for ALL traffic over a given period and compare results.

    33. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apparently these "advertisement articles" are intended to replace real articles monetized by ads, because ads are blocked!!!

    34. Re:I believe it... by Megane · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure what your point is here. That's like asking if paying your ISP bill should make the internet ad-free. Even cable TV isn't analogous, in that it pays some amount for most of the channels you get, then charges you to put it all together.

      Cable TV is a transport service. Ads on TV are to pay for the content. Or at least that's the basic idea. Cable TV technology has been able to "insert" (actually overwrite) ads on individual channels for years, though I'm sure they do pay a little to the channel for the privilege. (Some people seem to think that cable TV was ad-free from the start, but it really started by retransmitting over-the-air channels for areas where it was hard to receive. Then they got a bunch more channels when satellite became big, and eventually those channels ran their own commercials.)

      What I got tired of was intrusive internet ads. That's the equivalent of trying to read a newspaper while pictures are constantly squirming around and shouting at you. I don't even like news sites that autoplay video. But once I'm triggered to add a new block, I'll also go and block all the domains that are obviously not related to the site content, including the ones that try to track you. It's really surprising to see 20 or 30 domains referenced by a web page for ads and tracking.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    35. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How well does a web proxy handle https? Can it block ads on those sites?

    36. Re:I believe it... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I did have it installed on my phone (the standalone version, not a Firefox plugin) but it's a bit of a resource (RAM) hog if your phone isn't brand new.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    37. Re:I believe it... by xombo · · Score: 1

      The point isn't that slides are boring people, it's that slides create the impression that you're in the meeting to be entertained. If you can't pay attention and digest information from your field, try again.

    38. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MITM at the gateway/proxy. This is mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley act [wikipedia.org] in the US, and is likely imposed by US corporations in other jurisdictions.

      Can you expand on that? What part of SOX specifically requires a MITM gateway/proxy for https connections?

      One aspect of SarbOx is the control of data entering or leaving the corporation, as covered in section 302 and section 404. The easiest way of preventing data leakage is, for a large enough corporation, the MITM. Of course, this does not prevent one from grabbing a USB stick filled with data and sending that by other means, but the amount is fairly limited.

      My present employer (and the previous one, which was not based in the US, but did business there) both use the MITM approach.

    39. Re:I believe it... by chihowa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never said anything about boring people. If you need to actually present something instead of just handing out a document, then you should focus on presenting and not just showing text in the most inefficient format possible and then proceeding to read it from the screen.

      In my field, that means showing the plots of your data instead of a wall of text describing your interpretation of them (and then reading that wall of text). If you're not interacting with your audience then you're not aware of how well you're delivering the information.

      The point of a presentation is to deliver information by speaking. The point of a presentation aid like Powerpoint is to help you show things that you can't say or emphasize things that you can say. If you're just a talking head reading your slides out loud for the presumably literate audience, then you're just wasting everybody's time.

      If you can't be bothered to efficiently use a medium, then proceed to blame that ineptitude on your audience, try again.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    40. Re:I believe it... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If these sites cry foul, then they should contribute money to the users to offset the amount being lost due to ads. This is not free and these sites are freeloading off of their users.

    41. Re:I believe it... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Try this on dialup and the ads cause severe slowdowns. This is not unusual, many people are still using dialup as its the most affordable solution on a limited income. Even if you block all images the ads still are sucking up the bandwidth, as well as the morass of third party scripts.

    42. Re:I believe it... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I guess I just fail to see how data leakage relates to accuracy and protections for corporate accounting and auditing. If you had said HIPAA or PCI compliance, sure, no problem. Or even just "best practice" network security. But I don't understand how locking down https with a MITM proxy prevents Peter, Michael, and Samir from skimming off the rounded off interest.

    43. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lack of porn sites in the above list renders the experiment a non-representation of real world browsing.

    44. Re:I believe it... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      The thing about the email ads is that, with a lot of those, you sign up for those willingly, and they're from places you're interested in buying from. Newegg is a good example here: you probably got those emails because you bought stuff from Newegg, and then clicked on a box to be put on their mailing list so you could see their specials. It's entirely reasonable to think that you, both a former Newegg customer and a Slashdot user, meaning you're most likely a tech worker or the like, would be interested in buying more stuff from Newegg, especially any special sales.

      This is entirely different from spam email, or your typical banner ads on websites, which isn't requested and usually not something you're interested in.

      Google, with their AdWords, proved long ago that targeted advertisement is far, far more effective than any kind of unrequested ads, for good reason.

    45. Re:I believe it... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So if you BYOD, as many companies now either request or require, then you're safe?

    46. Re:I believe it... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      MITM at the gateway/proxy. This is mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley act [wikipedia.org] in the US, and is likely imposed by US corporations in other jurisdictions.

      Do you have a better source than wikipedia on this? Reading through the act I saw no such requirement. I understand that the act imposes a lot of requirements on public businesses, but requiring MITM decryption at the gateway/proxy isn't listed as a requirement or even as an enabler to help with other requirements.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    47. Re:I believe it... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      When cable TV was brand-new, it did not have commercials.

    48. Re:I believe it... by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Adaway works better for me on my phone. If you are rooted, it can just adjust the host file and not use any resources.

    49. Re:I believe it... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there used to be an extension for Firefox that blocked most off-site requests, except for some whitelisted ones for common JS libraries etc. I think if your browser just limited requests to the same domain as the main HTML file it would cut loading times dramatically,

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re: I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noooooo, don't mention the hosts file or you'll summon ... him!

    51. Re:I believe it... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "While it's nothing more than an annoyance on my home machinery"

      People who live in Outback, Nowhere find that bandwidth usage to be much more than a mere annoyance. The extra baggage of advertising can make a site unusable. And, it's such a terrible shame - fifteen years ago, 56k modems were sufficient. Today, a 2 meg DSL connection is insufficient to carry all the advertising that popular sites push at you. Given a home with two adults and three minors, 2 meg is quickly choked to death when everyone is online at the same time.

      I've been killing ad servers at the router for years now.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    52. Re:I believe it... by pepty · · Score: 1

      "the Net treats advertising as damage and routes around it"

    53. Re:I believe it... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      MITM at the gateway/proxy. This is mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley act [wikipedia.org] in the US, and is likely imposed by US corporations in other jurisdictions.

      Is that really the case that it is mandated? It is a massive violation of privacy and just asking for a mountain of legal trouble when some third party walks off with your users bank passwords and credit card details because they are doing internet banking from work.
      Being one disgruntled employee or hack away from being in the sights of the lawyers for a major bank is an extremely stupid place to put yourself into just so that you can snoop on web browsing habits a bit more effectively.

    54. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...you probably got those emails because you bought stuff from Newegg, and then clicked on a box to be put on their mailing list so you could see their specials.

      You see, that's where you fucked up your credibility. Nobody checks the box to get more spam, they just fail to uncheck the box that sends them more spam. That assumes there is even a box to (un)check instead of the site relying on the "you did business with us so we get to spam you for X months without recourse" BS.

    55. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh... and banning Powerpoint just wouldn't work... They would just use Word or, horrors, Excel.... (grin)

      Oh the horror! I can just imagine the congealed mass of VBA code and formulae that somebody might write to make Excel do full-featured slide shows complete with animated transitions and bullet points. (Each transition would probably be implemented in a slightly different way, in a different layer of code, seemingly at random, with hundreds of hacks to work around limitations in Excel.)

    56. Re:I believe it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I work, we have all out meetings over irc. Using irc means that people aren't interrupted, or waiting their turn to speak, so we here from every party, and nothing is missed. It also means you don't have to ask people to repeat what they were saying because you forgot, you don't need to keep minutes, and anyone who is working from home, away or whatever can participate or at least catch up.

      Physical meetings are not only a waste of time, but an impediment to effective communication.

    57. Re:I believe it... by petteyg359 · · Score: 1

      It was called RequestPolicy, but the author abandoned it in a broken state. EFF's PrivacyBadger is somewhat less configurable, but like much more effective since it isn't broken like RequestPolicy.

    58. Re:I believe it... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I'm already using PrivacyBadger as it happens.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    59. Re:I believe it... by volmtech · · Score: 1

      I know you are kidding about Viagra but some of us do need it. I do a web search when I need some. I have always got what I ordered. Legitimate sites don't need to spam people.

    60. Re:I believe it... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe you don't want those emails, but from a few select retailers, I personally actually do like to get emails from them. I can find out about sales and specials from them that I would otherwise not know about. Obviously you want to be selective about who you allow to send you this stuff, because otherwise it'll clog up your inbox, but if you're a frequent shopper for a retailer it's not unreasonable to sign up for their emails. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels this way.

    61. Re:I believe it... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I elected to use Privacy Badger. Works like a charm too.

      And it's available for firefox, google, explorer, etc.

      And Windows, Linux and the Mac.

      I promote what I use and like and Privacy Badger is free as in the air we breathe.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    62. Re:I believe it... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Blocking ad hosting sites will still work, and most video ads do not come from the same server as the desired web content. The IP address is not encrypted by HTTPS, so the router has no trouble blocking it.

      Blocking specific content from a site that also serves desired content will not work at the router because the router will not be able to decode the web page. Blocking it with a client-based plugin like AdBlock Plus will still work because it sees the decrypted web page.

    63. Re:I believe it... by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

      I have checked the box to receive offers, but only when I have signed up with separate (dedicated) spam account. To the previous poster, yes I am in the IT field and occasionally TigerDirect or NewEgg will spam with decent deals that I will buy. That said, I agree with your frustrations about (un)checking the "send me special offers" box. Lots of retailers seem to go out of their way to obscure that as much as possible. For example; if you failed some validation check on the form after unchecking the box, it will magically re-check itself with no warning. Or they will have it in some obscure part of the form were most people don't notice it. Or even worse they ask you AFTER you have placed your order when most people usually just close the window and don't notice the opt-out at the bottom of the page. That's the kind of crap that pisses me off.

  2. Now if only Slashdot would get rid of video ads. by hackwrench · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot even had an ad that hijacked the browser and kept pulling the page back to the location of the ad on the page.

  3. "the study was funded by Adblock Plus" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Disclaimer: the study was funded by Adblock Plus.

    Gosh, they must be selling something. It's not as if they'd just give Adblock Plus away for free.

    1. Re:"the study was funded by Adblock Plus" by Ksevio · · Score: 3, Funny

      They give it away for free, but it's ad supported.

    2. Re:"the study was funded by Adblock Plus" by athmanb · · Score: 1

      FYI nothing is ever given away for free. Yes at first glance that's just a platitude, but it's a good idea to always think about this simple truth whenever you you evaluate something has has a face price of zero.

    3. Re:"the study was funded by Adblock Plus" by fafalone · · Score: 1

      But the more people use AdBlock, the more money they can charge for their "acceptable ads" whitelist.

    4. Re: "the study was funded by Adblock Plus" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The whole gist of this article is that "free" websites are paid for by whoever is paying for transit. For a university it's probably thousands of dollars per month that they pay so that a student can look at usatoday for "free".

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:"the study was funded by Adblock Plus" by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      FYI nothing is ever given away for free.

      Yes at first glance that's just a platitude, but it's a good idea to always think about this simple truth whenever you you evaluate something has has a face price of zero.

      It's really not so simple as that. You can walk into many places at random to use their public restroom without making a purchase. They have given this service to you for free.

      At any coffeehouse you will also see that the napkins and creamer and sugar are free for the taking. They don't charge anything for them.

      You will also notice that wifi is free in many many places nowadays.

      Also you might notice that the city has given you permission for free to walk on their sidewalks and drive on their roads. They paid lots of money to make these things and they just let everyone use them for free.

      There is nothing complex or weird or unusual about any of these phenomena. There are no strings attached. There is no conspiracy. It's a simple fact that many things are free because it's not worth the effort to charge for them, and the goodwill involved makes up for the marginal cost.

    6. Re:"the study was funded by Adblock Plus" by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      All sorts of things are given away for free by some people. Software, music, sometimes even services. Quite a lot of things are given away free because the person would rather have a better world than a few more dollars, or they're creating the item as pastime. This totally confuses a lot of people who can't understand the concept that time is not money.

    7. Re:"the study was funded by Adblock Plus" by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about it. They're not taking your money so I don't understand why people think there's some giant conspiracy going on with ad block.

    8. Re:"the study was funded by Adblock Plus" by Some+nick+or+other · · Score: 1

      How many dollars does the Linux kernel go for?

  4. Seems a bit high by blueshift_1 · · Score: 1

    I could see 25% if you handling mostly text/images. But with streaming services, I feel like it'd be a bit less. Though there are naturally going to be diminished traffic just due less content being transmitted.

    1. Re:Seems a bit high by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it. As I tested it 10 years ago on my own network usage with my own half baked version of adblock (http://www.schooner.com/~loverso/no-ads/). I was getting 30-40% reduction. But that is a sample of 2 computers. I gave up on my own half baked version of that script from the schooner site. It got so bad the list was unmanageable aside from a full time job.

      If you use no-script the savings is even more dramatic. On some sites you can hit 20-30 external sites that all load things.

      Adblock if you use the standard block lists blocks youtube ads. That could be a large portion of traffic right there. Especially in a college situation.

      I have been hearing good things about the speed of uBlock. Anyone have any experience between the two?

    2. Re:Seems a bit high by GNious · · Score: 1

      Ever 3rd (ca) thing I hear on Spotify is an ad for Spotify Premium
      Ever 5-6 minutes on DI, I get an ad
      On Sony's music-video service I got 2 ads per song (Often the same twice)
      On YouTube I get a video-ad per video, easily as long as the video I'm watching in case of short "funny" vids (I've clocked youtube video-ads up to 3 minutes long)
      On Comedy Central, watching Daily Show and Colbert Report I get (got?) 1-3 video-ads per ca 6-minute segment

      The notion that stripping this could result in 25% reduction seems... high, but plausible, especially if the study went for ad-heavy traffic (it was funded by AdBlock Plus)

      Then on text/image sites, you get large anim-GIFs, multiple sizable javascripts, and flash elements, that together can take up more than half the data transferred... so averaging 25% becomes likely I think.

  5. Thus making companies spy 25% more on you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have to make up for lost revenue due to adblock by milking non-adblock users more somehow.

  6. The study may be compromised by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    But it is still perfectly plausible that advertising is what clogs the tubes a lot more than torrents.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Laugh by koan · · Score: 2

    This seems like a "no duh" thing that would have been done long ago.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  8. Teehee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA

    Dear Readers of TechWeekEurope.co.uk

    It seems that you are using "Adblock" or other software that blocks display of advertising. Advertisement revenue is necessary to maintain our quality and independence.

    To continue accessing our fantastic content, we suggest you either:

            A) Confirm in your Adblock software, your acceptance to view advertisements on NetMediaEurope group websites. We promise that our ads are tasteful, unobstrusive and appropriate.

            From the toolbar you can disable Adblock for the domain "TechWeekEurope.co.uk".
            B) Join for free our community of readers by providing your professional email.

            To do this, please subscribe here. You will receive a welcome e-mail to validate and confirm your subscription.

            You would then be able to continue browsing our sites without advertisements.

    Thank you for your consideration.
    The NetMediaEurope Team.

    Read more at http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/e-marketing/adblock-plus-adblocking-network-traffic-172245#RG4rhpbOVDL8gpKO.99

  9. Re: Now if only Slashdot would get rid of video ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ads are one thing. Visual spam is something even worse. I am tired of the ever present boob-woman ad for some iPhone game app that appears on most story pages of Slashdot mobile. It's really unprofessional and makes me cringe every time. I don't even use an iDevice and yet am subjected to it.

  10. More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More importantly how many malicious adverts/browser attacks did it block ? until advertisers vet every single advert (like a newspaper) and use static adverts instead of javascript they will remain blocked. cant survive ? too much hard work ? then go out of business you lazy bastards.

    1. Re:More importantly by tepples · · Score: 1

      until advertisers vet every single advert (like a newspaper) and use static adverts instead of javascript they will remain blocked.

      Where does that leave web applications that use scripts for core functionality, such as online whiteboards or even opening and closing comment subtrees in SoylentNews, Slashdot, or another threaded web-based discussion forum? People will end up whitelisting scripts on those web applications' domains to "unbreak" them and getting ad scripts along with them.

    2. Re:More importantly by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Which is why I block known ad servers by their hostnames instead of messign with browser settings. So many things I do for work and school depend on javascript and such working, it is much easier to play with your hosts files (home, single user) or block them at the router.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    3. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      until advertisers vet every single advert (like a newspaper) and use static adverts instead of javascript they will remain blocked.

      Where does that leave web applications that use scripts for core functionality, such as online whiteboards or even opening and closing comment subtrees in SoylentNews, Slashdot, or another threaded web-based discussion forum? People will end up whitelisting scripts on those web applications' domains to "unbreak" them and getting ad scripts along with them.

      It leaves them mostly unaffected. Adblock Plus is an adblocker, not a javascript whitelist addon. You may be thinking of NoScript.

    4. Re:More importantly by tepples · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I mistakenly inferred recommendation of NoScript from "use static adverts instead of javascript" in comment #50081673.

    5. Re:More importantly by behrooz0az · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you down if I could, stop talking about the fucking hosts file, we hate the fucking hosts file at /..just stop.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
    6. Re:More importantly by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      until advertisers vet every single advert (like a newspaper) and use static adverts instead of javascript they will remain blocked.

      Where does that leave web applications that use scripts for core functionality, such as online whiteboards or even opening and closing comment subtrees in SoylentNews, Slashdot, or another threaded web-based discussion forum? People will end up whitelisting scripts on those web applications' domains to "unbreak" them and getting ad scripts along with them.

      It leaves them mostly unaffected. Adblock Plus is an adblocker, not a javascript whitelist addon. You may be thinking of NoScript.

      I use AdBlock frequently to block Javascript that is loading from somewhere other than the page I'm on. This disables a lot of the annoying ads.

    7. Re:More importantly by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      And I'd mod you up just so the whole thread could appear for those of us who surf at 2 and up...

      So tell me *why* you hate the hosts file? For a laptop, what other method exists of making sure a connection to a particular hostname is never made? What about when said hostname has many IPs associated wtih it? Or for a home network, what makes it easier to go to "http://printer" instead of having to remember the darn things IP address?

      I can take the negative part, but don't just tell me it is bad, tell me how I can get the same functionality without the bad ...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    8. Re:More importantly by behrooz0az · · Score: 1

      Oh man, You didn't get the joke.
      Don't you remember the hosts file guy? The troll who posted an 8 page long comment about hosts file in every single thread...

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
    9. Re:More importantly by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Nope, sorry. The GNAA super long troll posts got me to surf at 2+, and with a (for me) -1 on Funny, that pretty much keeps me from seeing the trash and drivel...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    10. Re:More importantly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with NoScript, you can block third-party scripts without affecting functionality on most sites. I'd estimate that 99% of advertising scripts are served from third party domains.

      Frequently you can get away with only allowing scripts served from the domain you actually see in the address bar, and possibly also from one or two CDN domains, or domains for Javascript APIs. On many sites, there will be scripts from at least ten other domains, which you don't actually need in order to access the core functionalty of the site. (And often, if you allow scripts from those domains, they reference even more domains, so you end up with dozens of domains serving scripts that you didn't actually need in order to get things working.)

      My policy is that, if a website wants to show me adverts, then they should serve them themselves or block my access unless I agree to access advertisements from specific third party domains. I am quite aware that this is technically challenging and limits the possibility of tracking people, but as far as I'm concerned it's the most they're entitled to do. They have no right to force me to download content from anyone else if I don't want to. My computer, my rules. If they want to control what happens on my end, then they should provide me with a free appliance-style computer (i.e. a tablet-type device) to access their site from, which does what they want it to do. If it all means less free content online, then so be it. Frankly I could live without most ad-supported online content quite happily. I would probably benefit from wasting less time.

  11. Sounds Legit. by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

    Sounds plausible to me. Of course, I'd love to see some actual results from an unbiased study, but I don't doubt that by cutting out all the obnoxious and unnecessary ad traffic you'd reduce your network usage significantly.

    And that's even aside from the benefits of blocking a malicious vector.

  12. Blocking Flash does a lot by tepples · · Score: 2

    Was this a Flash ad? I save a lot of Internet traffic and CPU time on an Atom laptop by just setting Adobe Flash Player to "ask to activate". In my experience, most major ad networks currently aren't smart enough to sense that the Flash object has failed to load in order to replace it with an HTML5 video ad.

    1. Re:Blocking Flash does a lot by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I save a lot of internet traffic by not installing flash at all & using Chrome only for flash required things (hate your tech decision, VMware!)

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Blocking Flash does a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with flashblock, just starting today slashdot's been automatically scrolling me to the top every now and then while I'm trying to read/reply to the comments. I suspect there's some .scrollIntoView() script going on with their ad rotation when it loads in a new ad.

      Probably time to install NoScript again. Last time I installed it, I couldn't figure out how to get it to block/unblock 3rd party scripts by domain like it used to. The icon menu always only offered to block/allow all JS for the current site.

    3. Re:Blocking Flash does a lot by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Do even need Flash to be installed any more? Video is all HTML 5, and any site that requires Flash for navigation is basically broken. I uninstalled it over a year ago and never looked back.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Blocking Flash does a lot by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Inhouse training and similar stuff is typically a generation behind so I've had to make sure flash on all my linux desktops is up to date - which is pissing off people who are now getting a deluge of ads they never saw when they didn't have working flash.

  13. Didn't AdBlock development split at some point? by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

    To beomce AdBlock and AdBlock Edge because AdBlock whitelisted some ads by default and made it difficult to remove those whitelist entries?

    I heard something to that effect, any way. I can't remember when it happened but I remember a pretty big stink being raised about it and I swapped over to using Adblock Edge.

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    1. Re:Didn't AdBlock development split at some point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AdBlock whitelisted some ads by default
      Yes...
      and made it difficult to remove those whitelist entries?
      No. Single box-tick option.

    2. Re:Didn't AdBlock development split at some point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah, I think you're thinking about a config option that may have been enabled by default. Something along the lines of "allow some non-intrusive advertising". Not a big deal.

      IIRC, the real stink was raised because it was made more widely-known that AdBlock were, themselves, tracking their userbase.

  14. Text article with video ads by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I could see 25% if you handling mostly text/images. But with streaming services, I feel like it'd be a bit less.

    What tips the scale is the fact that a lot of sites stick video ads into text/image articles.

  15. Also, sky is blue, water is wet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And caching HTTP and DNS requests reduces your network traffic.

    -1, duh.

  16. AdBlockBlock by tepples · · Score: 2

    Adblock if you use the standard block lists blocks youtube ads.

    If it is acceptable for a client-side proxy or browser extension to block the display of preroll video ads, would it also be acceptable for YouTube to retaliate against the user of such proxy or extension by blocking the display of the video that plays after the preroll video ad?

    1. Re:AdBlockBlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      extension by blocking the display of the video

      That is probably exactly what will happen eventually. Many sites actually do exactly that. But I have found many times you can get around it.

    2. Re:AdBlockBlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Hulu, they've been doing that for a while.

    3. Re:AdBlockBlock by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I would say yes. You and I are under no specific obligation to make web requests for any specific content, we are under no specific obligation to display/execute/process response content in any fashion. Similarly Youtube et al should be under no specific obligation to respond to any given request or respond with any specific content.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:AdBlockBlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's certainly *acceptable* but is it *wise*? Presumably the ad-blocker would switch instead to downloading the ad but not showing it. So you still don't get the user to see the ad, all you've done is waste their *and your* bandwidth.

    5. Re:AdBlockBlock by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      would it also be acceptable for YouTube to retaliate against the user of such proxy or extension by blocking the display of the video that plays after the preroll video ad?

      Absolutely! But when Joe Sixpack eventually figures out that "nothing works" at YouTube, he will stop going there.

      Also keep in mind that a lot of actual "content" consists of little more than advertisements in itself. Product reviews (even teardowns), music videos, movie trailers - Do you think YouTube wants to block someone from watching the real ad, just because they skipped the pre-ad?

    6. Re:AdBlockBlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course.
      Please test it and see how it works. And remember to bank your life savings on this ground breaking idea.

    7. Re:AdBlockBlock by Archillies · · Score: 1

      I recall a tech news site doing something like that a bit ago (blocking content if you blocked the ad stream). See how well that went. Was it Ars Technica? I forget but I don't go there anymore...

      --
      Finally an OldFart : Keep off MY lawn too!
    8. Re:AdBlockBlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Hulu, they've been doing that for a while.

      Last I checked, Hulu didn't actually stop you from watching a video, they just replaced the ads you blocked with a slate asking you to turn off your adblocker (and, of course, the slate was up for longer than the ad would have been). Seemed reasonable to me.

    9. Re:AdBlockBlock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would it also be acceptable for YouTube to retaliate against the user of such proxy or extension by blocking the display of the video that plays after the preroll video ad?

      That depends on who you ask.

      Acceptable to the general public? Yes
      Acceptable to youtube/google? Yes
      Acceptable to the content creators that post videos on youtube and accept donations? Not at all!

      Blip.tv tried the same thing about a year ago, blocking videos to anyone running adblock or noscript.

      It lasted only three months before the video creators and publishers noticed they lost 66% of their revenue streams from direct donators, and the pitiful 5-20% they got from ad views was orders of magnitude less than the direct donation income.

      It took less than a month of video uploaders to bitch to blip to knock it off before blip did so.
      Many video publishers have since had to resort to using both blip/youtube or add in patreon to try and recover some of the income blip caused them to lose.

      And in my own case I've even been emailed directly by one producer still using blip asking if I would come back and reinstate my $500/month patreon donations.
      Which is a really sucky situation to be in, since I honestly do want to see that content producer succeed and be able to keep making videos. But at the same time I can't even view those videos due to blip, which of course isn't the producers fault or even under his control, but I must admit I don't really want to donate money monthly when I can't even watch the videos he uploads.

      I also ended up reducing my patreon pledge to a video game review show from $750/mo to $100/mo, as they use blip for live streaming and only a while after the fact upload 'archive' videos to youtube, the later of which is all I can watch.
      He has been thinking of switching from blip to twitch for live streaming, which although I do think would be a good change, is frustrating to me personally as Chrome is always getting confused on twitch for me between its built-in flash player, adobes flash, and requesting html5 videos in such a way that its always a fight to get working. (This problem only seems to rear up when watching live streams on twitch. Recorded videos are fine. And yes it is most likely my Chrome setup somehow and not some general problem... But still)

  17. Re:Now if only Slashdot would get rid of video ads by dark.nebulae · · Score: 2

    I use noscript and have no ads nor tracking while on slashdot...

  18. Sky is blue, water is wet, hosts is useful by tepples · · Score: 1

    And caching HTTP and DNS requests reduces your network traffic.

    Especially if you cache the DNS responses in /etc/hosts and forge ad networks' addresses as 0.0.0.0 in the same file.

    1. Re:Sky is blue, water is wet, hosts is useful by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      be careful, you might summon APK

    2. Re: Sky is blue, water is wet, hosts is useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, everyone already knows that apk's supershitty hosts file manager is the cure to all security problems. He has told us literally thousands of times.

      Oh, and everyone only uses windows. /etc/hosts does not exist.

    3. Re:Sky is blue, water is wet, hosts is useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point I think tepples wants to summon APK. You can tell by this page on his web site.

  19. Well of course it did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When your computer locks up and resets all the time it uses no network resources

    1. Re:Well of course it did by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of the findings? After all, it is ad networks that carry most of the Internet's malware.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  20. Disclosure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a disclosure, not a disclaimer.

    (Perhaps I should make a disclaimer to avoid being held responsible for my pedantry.)

    1. Re:Disclosure by tepples · · Score: 1

      To me, it's both. A disclosure disclaims the implied lack of affiliation to a particular concern.

  21. Irony is... by Dredd13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... if you visit the first article linked in the story, while using AdBlock, you get a giant pop-up complaining about your doing so. :-)

    1. Re:Irony is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AWwwwwwwwwwww....

    2. Re:Irony is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using Pale Moon, AdBlock Latitude, and NoScript, I got no pop-up.

    3. Re:Irony is... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, you only see that pop-up if you forgot to use noscript.

  22. I'm surprised it's not more. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even though it's funded by adblock, I still believe it. May not be such high percentages, but it will certainly take a measurable chunk away.

    I'm surprised it's not more.

    Perhaps that's me, though. My browsing tends to be sites, such as Slashdot, where the meat I'm after is text, and the site's chaff is mainly icons, formatting-prettys, buttons, and other things that are static, image-light, and either susceptable to substantial compression or rendeded by the browser from small descriptions. Ads, meanwhile, tend to be image-rich, moving, and flashy, and designed for the add site's customer (who has litte concern for the viewer's costs) which chews up bandwidth.

    I'll presume it's so low either because others browse more bandwidth-intensive sites or site designers, in this age of broadband and optimized-only-for-appearance site design tools, are also not interested in keeping the bandwidth down (and the resulting performance up).

    Individual sites cry foul because they cannot meet their advertising targets affecting their revenue, but from the point of view of the user that is active on the net they are bombarded by advertising. Stripping even 10% away can be a good thing...

    For reducing viewer distraction, cutting bandwidth costs, and avoiding delays in web-page rendering.

    I NEED to suppress the ads when I'm at the ranch, with only slow dialup. A single image can make a page take minutes to load, when it could have been up in a second or less. So imagine one surrounded by banner ads, sidebar ads, embedded ads, footer ads, and so on. One animated ad can make the page take half an hour or more to load, and dynamic content can make it never finish at all, as the content changes outstrip the bandwidth.

    I even browse Slashdot with a configuration hack corresponding roughly to enabling firefox's long-lost "delay image loading" option. To do otherwise, even in classic mode and with "patron status or enough karma to disable ads", would be impractical.

    Without adblock plus AND noscript, (and maybe flashblock,) I'd be off the web when out of town.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:I'm surprised it's not more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just network bandwidth, It's also local resources.

      Can't count how many times (without adblock) that browsers would hang on some java-script code because it was pulling from an overloaded ad server or was poorly written and hangs the whole browser.

      Forget things like plugin-container, we need a java-script container process to stop one damn page (or iframe) from hanging the whole browser process because some idiot slapped together a 2MB java-script page to run their ads.

  23. I definitely buy it by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    When I can be bothered to install AdBlock on a machine, the responsiveness goes up significantly. I'm guessing most of the speed increase isn't in the downloading of resources, but the messy JavaScript that has to run in the browser to position everything.

    On a related note, I also remember hearing something about when the new CEO of JCPenney took over, his team noticed that almost 1/3 of all network traffic coming out of their HQ was YouTube. That's a LOT of cat videos. It's enough trying to balance control and freedom on desktops; I can't imagine having to police the company Internet connection.

  24. I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Anonymice · · Score: 1

    I have Adblock+ installed on my browser, but I only use it on the most obnoxious of sites.

    There are 3 ways content sites can support themselves:
    1) With payments & subscriptions;
    2) With Ads outside of the content;
    3) With sponsored content that *is* an Ad

    I choose 2. I don't want to have to pay for every site & page that I click on, so the only other option a site has bar explicit ads, is with sponsored content. Content which attempts to look legitimate & impartial, but whose ultimate goal is to influence the reader for financial gain.

    I reserve the adblocking only for when I'm forced to use the flashy heavy sites which drag my browser to a crawl. I've even gone so far as to never have used the /. function to disable ads. I use the site, I want to support the site, and I occasionally click through to the ads I personally find interesting.

    1. Re:I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose ads that aren't malware vectors. That's next to none.

    2. Re:I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are 3 ways content sites can support themselves:
      1) With payments & subscriptions;
      2) With Ads outside of the content;
      3) With sponsored content that *is* an Ad"

      4) The site is run Ad-Free as a side cost of doing business.
      Oh, the only business _is_ the site?

      I know of two long-running News/Forum sites that are run as a sideline, in both cases, the main business has an online as well as a B&M presence, that preceded the WWW. No ads, rather than a single link to their Online Stores at the top.
      This wacky idea that one just throws up a website, builds an audience, and then desperately finds ways to "Monetize" it/them is very recent, and very naive.

      Other than those two sites, and a couple of "hobbyist" sites that I visit and are run just for the fun of it, I Adblock the hell out of the WWW, because of the wretched state of online advertising and the people involved in it. (That means you, Dice.)
      And I will allow no Adobe Flash at all. There is _no_ Flash-based content worth the irritation. The same goes for anything Microsoft.
      Until these assholes clean up their act, I will just continue to go through life online mostly ad-free. The weird thing is, when I do let a Google ad through, it's either for Fry's, or a company that sells Rubidium Atomic Clocks, which i actually have a use for, once the price comes down.

    3. Re:I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Anonymice · · Score: 1

      4) The site is run Ad-Free as a side cost of doing business.
      Oh, the only business _is_ the site?

      No, the business is the "content". I frequent many sites who provide quality content & support themselves with advertising & merchandising. I've got little interest in merchandise, so the only revenue these sites can earn from me to cover their costs are from advertising & donations. The latter tends to be limited to small hobby sites.
      B&M is expensive & restricts you to a physical location, & in my case the majority of the content I consume (tech news & blogs, international politics, manuals, etc.) comes from countries on the other side of the world.

      I find many Slashdotters to be very hypocritical on this subject. They complain about paywalls, targeted advertising AND general advertising. And to those of you, I say, "Fuck You". Quality content doesn't come free.

    4. Re:I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The sites depending on ad revenue need to find a different method of getting paid. Seriously. They've been abusive far too long and we shouldn't have to put up with it. If ads make half these internet sites vanish then so be it, since nothing of value will be lost.

    5. Re:I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I find many Slashdotters to be very hypocritical on this subject. They complain about paywalls, targeted advertising AND general advertising. And to those of you, I say, "Fuck You". Quality content doesn't come free."

      You are such a Fool.
      I supplied Quality Content in my posting above, and I'm about to do so again.
      For free, just like _you_ did. Slashdot Commenting _is_ the Content here. (Certainly nobody cares what the "Editors" think any longer, other than to make fun of them.)
      Does Dice cut you a check for your "Quality Content"? No, they sold your comments to the advertisers, and pocketed the money.
      It may be that you are just young and arrogant. Certainly you are deluded. Slashdotters aren't hypocritical; they are practical, as you would have noticed from the other comments if you weren't so obsessed with defending the indefensible.
      _If_ the Advertisers behaved themselves, and _if_ they weren't so inept in their coding and wasting of bandwidth, and _if_ advertising wasn't a major vector for Malware, _then_ we wouldn't _be_ blocking ads.

    6. Re:I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If you want quality content, then the internet is the wrong place to look for it.

      If the advertisers refuse to play nice then the internet users have no alternative but to protect themselves. Ad block is self defense, pure and simple. So someone with a hobby can't buy a new microphone for the blog, big deal, they should get a real job to pay for their hobby or find something cheaper to do in their off time. Maybe I sound callous, but I am under attack by advertisers and I am not going to surrender so that they can continue stealing my bandwidth and serving me ads that cost them nothing but which costs me real money to receive.

    7. Re:I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Anonymice · · Score: 1

      No, I'm a pragmatist with enough experience in the area to know what it costs to run big infrastructure. When you leave high school, you might also learn what it's like to keep quality services running in the real world.

      Slashdot is pretty much the only site I visit which is mostly user-generated content. They also have relatively little advertising.
      Complain about the way the site is run all you like - I agree with much of it, however that Slashdot isn't itself Slashdotted, an effect caused by just a fraction of its visitors (I mean, come on, what percentage of people actually RTFA?) just shows how much goes into their own infrastructure.

      I already stated above that I also hate the abusive flash-heavy ads - I block them myself. However I make sure to allow any advertising which I think is reasonable. With any luck, that will help influence what type of advertising is the most effective. Nuking *everything* just encourages advertisers to try & find workarounds.

    8. Re:I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Anonymice · · Score: 1

      It's about being selective with what you block to show site owners what is & isn't acceptable. Blocking *everything* fails to provide any sort of feedback & just encourages them to try & find workarounds to the ad-blockers.

      Content providers in both online & printed media rely on the same model. Fees, subscriptions or advertising.
      I don't see many people complaining about the ads in newspapers & magazines. Don't fool yourself. The only print media you get for free & *doesn't* include ad spreads are brochures & sponsored material which is *itself* the ad.

    9. Re:I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I don't have to pay for the ads in newspapers and magazines that I look at in the store; I only pay for it if I buy them. On the internet, I pay for these ads just by clicking on their links and then wondering why my browser is so slow. For mail ads, the advertiser has to pay real money to mail them out (bulk rate though) and it costs me nothing except a couple of seconds to transfer them from the mailbox to the recycle bin; on the internet the advertisers are not paying their fair share of distribution

      A newspaper or magazine is going to have a real live person examining every advertisement that wants to be included. The ads are curated in other words. You're not going to see condom ads in Hilights for Kids. On the internet these wannabe-journalist bloggers don't give a shit, they sign up for the "send me free money!" advertising service and relinquish their control over what happens after that (so you go to a gaming blog and see non-sequitur ads about Buicks or direct marketing).

      Newspapers and magazines have never infected my computer with malware. They've never had pop-ups that refuse to go away. They never prevented me from turning the page for 10 seconds. They never installed search helpers and other "utilities" without asking for permission. Sure not all web sites are that way, but the majority of them are, and I cant' take the chance here that I'm wrong because the ramifications for a mistake are too high. I don't need to be flashed before I should avert my eyes from a guy in a trenchcoat standing in an alley, I'd rather be proactive about not looking.

      I am also NOT subscribing to these sites. If it is a site I will be visiting a lot and which has EARNED my respect then I may unblock it from ads on a trial basis or supply a donation.

      Sure maybe some people are innocent victims here, but I'll repeat again: I block ads out of self defense. If you're mad at me for using ad block then you should be even more angry at the anti social attitudes of advertisers and will stop treating them as a source of money for nothing.

    10. Re:I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, I'm a pragmatist with enough experience in the area to know what it costs to run big infrastructure. When you leave high school, you might also learn what it's like to keep quality services running in the real world."
      Funny. I had finished Berkeley and was running my first Lab Inter-Network, (We didn't call it "Infrastructure" back then...), in 1978.
      Were you even alive in 1978?
      For nearly 20 years after, I was deep, deep, into the guts of the evolving "Internet". It somehow blossomed without any advertising whatsoever, and I'm including the parts run by Business, like HP, Apple and NI.
      The only reason that you can continue with your line of reasoning, must be that you are "pragmatically" in bed with the advertisers, as part of your job. Self-Entitlement is not part of any Job Description. You can be replaced quickly and cheaply.

      I repeat my fourth means of funding websites:
      "4) The site is run Ad-Free as a side cost of doing business:
      Oh, the only business _is_ the site?"

      Your concept of what "big infrastructure" is, seems to be pretty small. Most of the "big infrastructure" that I'm familiar with not only doesn't have any advertising, huge chunks of it aren't even Internet accessible. There may be a website for the Public, for informational and educational purposes only. Full of Quality Content. Paid for out of overhead.
      Yes, most of it is Corporate Research, Academic, University, or Government in nature. Big Iron.
      You know, just like the University Network discussed in TFA.
      If they see significant overhead savings in blocking _all_ incoming ads, that means more left over for Quality Content.
      And the _only_ way to make it work is to block _all_ ads. It's too time consuming to go through all the ads one by one, allowing only the most innocuous to run, and too open to abuse.
      And if it means that you lose out on a few Kopeks, by all those Students missing out on your "Big Infrastructure"...
      That's
      just
      too
      bloody
      bad.

    11. Re:I'm against ad-blocking on a network level by Anonymice · · Score: 1

      You must be visiting too many porn & crapware sites then, because my experience has been distinctly different from yours.
      Of course, you're mostly blowing hot air, because as by your own admission you have everything blocked anyway - you don't see any of it in the first place.

      I've never had anything silently installed by flash or anything else on my browser. I got bitten a by search bar once, but only because I stupidly installed some shitware off SourceForge (RIP). It was hardly a surprise.

      You're also highly unlikely to see any adult ads on any reasonably frequented gaming site. If you'd worked with ANY commercial sites yourself in the past DECADE, you'd know that.
      With the exception of, again, adult & crapware sites, all advertising is now targeted - it's more profitable for the client, it's more profitable for the advertiser, it's more profitable for the site & it's less annoying to the user. And the base line for targeting is aiming at that particular site's audience. So no, you're not going to be finding any adult content on kids' sites.

  25. reduces some traffic, enables others. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Informative

    Adblock plus has a coloured history of cherrypicking advertisers to quietly ignore. It was accused of accepting bribes from google to allow their ads. it has a whitelist of ads it considers tasteful enough to allow as well. Its also been fingered for slowing the browser experience for many users.

    try microblock instead. And dont rely on just adblocking plugins to keep the network clean. null route known ad servers at home and work using a blacklist http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/. the same process can be applied to rooted android phones as well, creating an ad-free experience that saves you money.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:reduces some traffic, enables others. by Bengie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Adblock plus has a coloured history of cherrypicking advertisers to quietly ignore

      They openly advertise this, pun intended. They do claim to have a minimum quality requirement for whitelisted companies, and companies need to pay to get on that white list. Breaking the terms by having questionable ads can remove the companies from the whitelist forcing them to pay all over again. I seems to be done in a way that would cost a company more to break the rules.

    2. Re:reduces some traffic, enables others. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't enough FUD in life so we are spreading it around to the most wonderful adblocker in existence now? Jesus.

    3. Re:reduces some traffic, enables others. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ermm - it seems to me ABP have a "whitelisted domains" options tab, and I deleted all entries. Then I unchecked "Allow some non-intrusive advertising"

    4. Re:reduces some traffic, enables others. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try microblock instead. And dont rely on just adblocking plugins to keep the network clean. null route known ad servers at home and work using a blacklist http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/. the same process can be applied to rooted android phones as well, creating an ad-free experience that saves you money.

      I tried uBlock but it let through a whole pile of crap that Adblock+ didn't so I had to go back. Seriously.. WTF?

  26. I believe it too, and also a pitch for Ghostery by dskoll · · Score: 4, Informative

    AdBlock Plus is awesome. Another really useful tool is Ghostery. It might not reduce bandwidth dramatically, but by blocking beacons, trackers, etc. it junks tons of JavaScript content and makes web pages render far more quickly. This really improves the browsing experience.

    1. Re:I believe it too, and also a pitch for Ghostery by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      I can second the use of both of those. At first I was a little hesitant using ghostery and went around disabling stuff by hand on a per-site basis. Eventually I got tired of that and set it to block everything. Noticed no adverse effects, and it sped up page loading times significantly.

    2. Re:I believe it too, and also a pitch for Ghostery by pavon · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree with using Ghostery (or something like it) for privacy reasons. That said Ghostery and AdBlock both use quite a bit of memory*, and IMHO slow things down as much as the ads they are blocking (apart from flash ads which FlashBlock or native click-to-play capability solves with much less overhead). Furthermore, I almost never see ads when running Ghostery, and conversely the EasyPrivacy filter list for AdBlock does much of the same thing that Ghostery does. So I would recommend trying them both out, and then sticking to just one rather than running both at once. Also, if you use Ghostery make sure it is configured to block new elements by default.

      Lastly, if you (or someone you do tech support for) refuses to use Ghostery (or NoScript) because it sometimes break webpage functionality, Disconnect is a good option to look at. It doesn't block nearly as much as Ghostery, and isn't as informative about what it is (and isn't) blocking, but it is better than nothing. I have never had it break a website, and requires no config tweaking.

      *Note, the memory usage issue may get better in a couple releases.

    3. Re:I believe it too, and also a pitch for Ghostery by garcia · · Score: 1

      Try uBlock Origin; Chrome is using considerably less memory on OSX than it was when I was running ABP (anywhere from 15% to 25% less).

      https://chrome.google.com/webs...

    4. Re:I believe it too, and also a pitch for Ghostery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used Ghostery too until I found out what they were doing: [Ghostery] "has a financial incentive to encourage the program's adoption and discourage alternatives like Do Not Track and cookie blocking as well as to maintain positive relationships with intrusive advertising companies," http://lifehacker.com/ad-blocking-extension-ghostery-actually-sells-data-to-a-514417864
      I'm using Disconnect now instead.

    5. Re:I believe it too, and also a pitch for Ghostery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people still keep using AdBlock or AdBlock Plus like its 2009?

      AdBlock Plus is rubbish (in bed with advertising companies), use Ablock Edge.
      Ghostery is rubbish (run by an advertising company), use Disconnect.
      To control javascript a bit better on the rest use NoScript.
      And don't forget to manage those cookies with something too (TACO, Cookie Monster, etc).

      Once you have reached 2014 throw it all out and use Pale Moon instead and install all those add-ons again.

    6. Re:I believe it too, and also a pitch for Ghostery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried Ghostery but took it off when it got too annoying. So many sites that I need to use ended up broken no matter how many things I whitelisted. I just stick to Adblock Plus and NoScript now.

  27. Browser options and whitelists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had similar results just using Chrome's manage javascript settings to reduce traffic when hotspotting my phone's wifi connections. Of course I allow javascript on slashdot :-)

  28. uBlock Origin by Dwedit · · Score: 1

    Adblock Plus is old and busted, uBlock Origin is the new hotness.

    1. Re:uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup.

      For instance:
      requests blocked on this page: 10 or 38%

  29. That seems small by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    It reduced data only 25%? I would have guessed more like 5X

    1. Re:That seems small by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Probably is 5x for simple sites and much less for YouTube like sites where the content is large.

  30. Not if you also use noscript. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    ... if you visit the first article linked in the story, while using AdBlock, you get a giant pop-up complaining about your doing so. :-)

    Not if you also use noscript. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Not if you also use noscript. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the advertisement itself is inserted using javascript...

  31. If neither party is willing to foot the whole bill by tepples · · Score: 1

    Say it costs $20 to provide a service. Advertisers are willing to pay only $10, and subscribers are willing to pay $10. The result is Hulu Plus, which has both ads and payment.

  32. I don't know... by halivar · · Score: 3, Funny

    See, this one guy said I should use his custom HOSTS file to block this stuff...
    /duck
    /run

  33. God Damnit by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The first rule of AdBlock Plus is that you do not talk about AdBlock Plus.

    THE SECOND RULE OF ADBLOCK PLUS IS THAT YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT ADBLOCK PLUS!

    caps filter bypass: lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

    1. Re:God Damnit by Extremus · · Score: 1

      Hacking by incantations?

    2. Re:God Damnit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The third rule is that you do not talk about hosts files.

      THE FOURTH RULE IS THAT YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT HOSTS FILES.

      *ducks, runs, and hides*

    3. Re:God Damnit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could ya talk hosts if apk shuts you up on 'em http://it.slashdot.org/comment... as he always does with that list in that link, troll?

  34. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't give a fuck. If I pay for something, I better not see ads. How the costs are divided is not my problem.

  35. I am not funded by Adblock Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I manage a small but very active network (~20 computers) and all computers here had Adblock Plus installed on them. I don't have hard numbers but likewise, the amount of data coming into our network has dropped significantly.

  36. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the point is, are you willing to pay double (to use the example at hand) to have no commercials, because (again, using the example at hand) that's what it would cost you.

  37. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you aren't paying! What you are paying for is the cable service, not necessarily the content!

  38. Adblock? Pffff... Use HOSTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use APKs HOSTS file generator and deploy the resulting file with a group policy against my network! No extra runtime software needed!

    Take that, ABP!

    1. Re:Adblock? Pffff... Use HOSTS by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      With a total reduction in network traffic of 100%!

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  39. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by chihowa · · Score: 1

    In the case of Hulu Plus (or cable TV), subscribers are never offered the opportunity to foot the whole bill.

    The subscription + advertising model of Hulu Plus and cable TV are due to the advantages of being able to derive income from two distinct non-communicating parties. Since Hulu is owned and run directly by the media networks, it's not surprising that they're keeping the same business model. Since advertising and commercials are the foundation of their entire empire, I'd be surprised if they ever offered access to their content entirely commercial-free.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  40. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by Bengie · · Score: 1

    No, they charge you for the channels, which are the content.

  41. Re: Now if only Slashdot would get rid of video ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean this woman for that game called Game of War:

    http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Kate-Upton-St.-Joseph-MI-667x1001.jpg

    How can anyone be tired of looking at that fine example of premium visual spam?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz9S1RvNRKQ

  42. Re: If neither party is willing to foot the whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only channel you can get for free is the Advertising Channel.

  43. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    YES but we are not allowed the option.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  44. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    Say it costs $20 to provide a service. Advertisers are willing to pay only $10, and subscribers are willing to pay $10. The result is Hulu Plus, which has both ads and payment.

    mmmm not the ones I know.

  45. Re:Now if only Slashdot would get rid of video ads by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    haha. now THAT is clever

  46. Re: If neither party is willing to foot the whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only channel you can get for free is the Advertising Channel.

    I can stick an antenna on my house and pick up PBS for free.

  47. Adverts are for luddites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Modern advertisers adversites using apps.

  48. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if the monthly costs between Amazon (no commercials), Netflix (unfortunately starting commercials), and Hulu (lots of commercials) compare in this way.

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/h...

    According to this site, Netflix with no commercials (starting commercials sometimes for their own things, before or after the show, not during) costs almsot exactly the same as Amazon and Hulu:
    http://www.businessinsider.com...

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  49. There is something wrong by blue+trane · · Score: 1

    There is something wrong with an economy that prioritizes advertising over production. There is so much production capacity that advertising has to absorb excess profits to capture market share from a shrinking group of consumers with enough disposable income. Instead, create money and transfer it to individuals in the form of a Basic income. Stimulate innovation with challenges. Put the basic income financing on the Fed's balance sheet, so there is zero cost to taxpayers. Index all incomes to inflation, with the Fed providing the adjustments, so purchasing power remains constant.

    1. Re:There is something wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stalin tried that. It didn't work out.

    2. Re:There is something wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a world that values cat pictures and memes the world will learn to produce genetically modified meme-cats.

      Or just print the memes on the cats. Or tattoo?

    3. Re:There is something wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hooray for undistributed middle!

  50. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    Not sure it's a valid representation.

    Maybe HuluPlus just wants $10 more/person?
    And next year, maybe it's $15 more...so more/bigger/higher$ ads.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  51. test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    test https://github.com/xJota/NowCrawling test test test test

  52. Re: If neither party is willing to foot the whole by chihowa · · Score: 1

    Some of us are willing to pay (with actual money, not eyeball-time or personal information) for commercial-free media. It's only the people that are constantly chasing "free" that should have to put up with the shock-and-awe advertising campaigns.

    Paying for access, only to also be subjected to advertising, is bullshit. I would gladly pay Hulu to cover the share that they're getting from advertisers, but I'll pay them exactly nothing if I can't lose the advertising altogether.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  53. Video Streaming is Huge by pavon · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised it's not more.

    That was my first reaction too, then I remembered how much streaming has taken off. Globally, video streaming accounts for a bit more than 50% of all traffic. Excluding that means that at least 50% of non-video-streaming traffic is caused by ads.

    You'd also expect that video streaming was higher among a younger demographic like a University. If removing ads decreased the video traffic by 40% and 25% of total traffic was ads, the non-ad video streaming accounted for up to 62% of the total traffic at the University (depending on what percentage of ads were video). By that number, ads account for at most 67% of non-video-streaming traffic. That number can go up more once you subtract out the 5-10% of traffic caused by Bittorent and music streaming. I was expecting to add in a factor for email, but even given the 80-90% of email that is spam, the total email traffic has been dwarfed by other traffic and is isn't worth including.

    Based on all that you could expect ads to account for anywhere from 55-90% of web browsing traffic, which sounds more reasonable.

    1. Re:Video Streaming is Huge by Some+nick+or+other · · Score: 1

      Adblock Plus also blocks YouTube ads, so it reduces the amount of data downloaded when video streaming as well.

  54. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Does it cost $20 though, or is Hulu gouging their subscribers? I don't subscribe to, say, NBC, yet they and their affiliates manage to turn a profit from advertising alone. Digital distribution is extremely cheap, and yet, it costs more to buy a digital download of something than to buy a physical copy. Something is amiss. Hopefully competition will force downward pressure on prices, but right now it's more of a cartel than a competition. Netflix may be an outlier in that regard, for now, but Hulu and "premium" content providers like HBO and ShowTime trying to charge $10/mo for their limited content is a bit ridiculous. And Hulu doesn't even create original content.

  55. Unequal sharing of bandwidth cost by tepples · · Score: 2

    So you still don't get the user to see the ad, all you've done is waste their *and your* bandwidth.

    Bandwidth is a lot cheaper for a server in a datacenter than for a viewer behind a WWAN (cellular or satellite) connection, which tends to have a cap of 3 to 10 GB per month. So WWAN users have a monetary incentive against downloading ads that will not be displayed.

  56. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    No commercials on Netflix here in the UK - I guess having an ad-free public broadcaster of world-renowned quality forces the other market players to raise their game (we have an average of 12 minutes per hour rather than 18 on our other FTA networks).

    Given that most of the costs must be for content, imagine what the USA could have with a similarly funded ($19 a month) public broadcaster...

  57. Exclusives by tepples · · Score: 1

    I currently subscribe to none, but I'm told Netflix and Amazon Prime also tend to have older shows than Hulu Plus because the royalties are cheaper. If you want to stay current on watercooler conversation, you may need the service with both revenue streams. From the article you linked on businessinsider.com:

    For example, on Netflix you can watch all of season two of "New Girl," but you have to wait until the whole third season is released a month or so after it ends, while you can watch the five latest episodes of "New Girl" on Hulu Plus right now.

    1. Re:Exclusives by chihowa · · Score: 1

      "Exclusivity" and "the royalties are cheaper" describe entirely different things.

      From your example, "New Girl" is distributed by 21st Century Fox (indirectly through subsidiaries) and Hulu is a joint venture between 21st Century Fox and several other media companies. One of the companies that owns Hulu also owns "New Girl". There is no evidence that new episodes of "New Girl" are available at any price to Netflix (a stream-as-you-like service that competes directly with Hulu, as opposed to Amazon's pay-per-episode model).

      If exclusivity is in play, the number of revenue streams being tapped has no impact on the availability of certain media. Fox is paying itself royalties for the new episodes, anyway. I'm sure that it must remain profitable for them to keep doing it, but by granting itself exclusive distribution rights it isn't competing on even ground with Netflix. This isn't an apples to apples comparison.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    2. Re:Exclusives by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you want to stay current on watercooler conversation, you may need the service with both revenue streams.

      Luckily, in my industry (software) it seems like none of my coworkers ever talk about current shows, except of course for Game of Thrones which they all probably just download on BitTorrent. In the last week, I can only remember one reference to current TV shows, and it wasn't any show in particular, it was just "reality TV", and it was just a comment along the lines of reality TV being trash.

    3. Re:Exclusives by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Amazon offers both pay-per-episode video (Instant Video) and subscription video (Prime Video). Pay-per-episode has a much larger selection, and includes many TV shows and movies that are not available on any subscription service. Amazon's subscription video service has a smaller selection than Netflix does, but it is also less expensive - the price is in the same neighborhood but Amazon Prime includes a number of non-video services, notably free second day shipping.

  58. Re: If neither party is willing to foot the whole by tomhath · · Score: 0

    Where the programming is brought to you by the DNC

  59. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by chihowa · · Score: 1

    To be honest, my unfounded speculation is that the subscription fees alone are enough to cover the operational costs plus a respectable profit for Hulu Plus (and Amazon/Netflix when they aren't being squeezed by the media companies). I think that the advertising revenue is pure gravy and that they'll never give it up because of the licensing exclusivity that they hold (=they can) and their longstanding partnership with advertisers.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  60. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, yes I am.

  61. Re: If neither party is willing to foot the whole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where the programming is brought to you by the DNC

    I don't remember the last time I saw anything overtly political on PBS, but if it makes you feel better, you can also listen to talk radio, also for free. At least I think that there are some radio programs out there in between the 10-minute commercial breaks, it's been a while.

  62. Re: If neither party is willing to foot the whole by cfalcon · · Score: 1

    Agree totally. The moment anything includes ads is the moment I stop paying for that thing.

    The big problem is that the ability to encounter ads is forced as hard as they can.

    "Ok before you can see whatever, watch this ad. Fast forward won't work obviously." -> adblock
    "Oh, I see you're using adblock, well whine bitch cry" -> greasemonkey to hide that I'm using adblock

    Advertisers see no issue demanding that their clients try as hard as they can to subvert user control of their machine and time. Fuck that bullshit.

  63. Privoxy on a router... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to have Privoxy on my router after I flashed it with OpenWRT, it was nice not having to configure each workstation. I had to replace the router though with one that couldn't be flashed after switching from DSL to a cable modem.

  64. uMatrix by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    uMatrix - gorhill, replaces Adblock, NoScript etc.

  65. Where are the uBlock people? by waspleg · · Score: 4, Informative

    I remember a related story a few months ago and I was using Adblock Edge (forked non-sell out version of ABP) and advocating it. People kept spamming my thread saying that uBlock was better. So I tried it out and am now a convert. It is in fact lighter weight and nearly transparent, but since they don't pay for placement you have to search for it 2x in the add-ons to find it.

    I primarily use Firefox, with uBlock (you can enable even stricter subsets of rules if you want, I did without issue), HTTPS Everywhere and Privacy Badger (the last 2 are from the EFF). I only see ads at work on other people's machines. There are other good add-ons for other stuff but this + wipe everything on browser close and private windows are nice.

    The only memory leaks seem to come from anything Flash based. So I'm forced to kill/restart FF every few days or it gets progressively slower and slower. I've noticed it's not really an issue without something running Flash.

    1. Re:Where are the uBlock people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have set flash to only load when I let it. Tools->add-ons->Plugins->Flash->Ask to activate. And it remember per site preferences. Just as good as any plugin and built in.

    2. Re:Where are the uBlock people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Set the flash plugin to click to play

    3. Re:Where are the uBlock people? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I have that, and while it helps, when you do have want to activate some flash widget/video/whatever, you'll end up still slowing your browser down.

      I've actually found on Windows, IE seems to be the only browser that works well with Flash-heavy sites for long periods of time. Other browsers seem to either slow down, hang, crash, or have problems with the Flash plug-in crashing. Hopefully it won't matter soon anyway, as Flash seems less and less useful as time goes on and I don't even bother installing Flash on most of the computers I use anyway.

  66. Targeted ads? by Shadow+IT+Ninja · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the point of targeted advertising supposed to be that you would need fewer ads to support a site? Behavioural marketers argure that if they had to place ads by the general demographic of a site's visitors, rather than target ads to individuals, then there would have to be as many ads as there are in a print magazine. 25% of traffic seems like a lot from that perspective. I realize that the ads are probably not taking up a huge amount of area on the page but I think they are every bit as intrusive as magazine ads, if not more.

    1. Re:Targeted ads? by Megane · · Score: 1

      Magazine ads don't squirm and wriggle around, expand to take up the whole page, scribble lines under words all over the page, or play loud sounds. Magazine ads are quite unintrusive compared to internet ads.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:Targeted ads? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Magazine ads don't squirm and wriggle around,

      High Times ads excepted.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Targeted ads? by vilanye · · Score: 1

      The magazines the wife reads are 90% ads. She sometimes has to flip 5-10 pages of nothing but ads to continue reading.

    4. Re:Targeted ads? by Megane · · Score: 1

      But they still don't change size or move around. When I said "expand", I meant the usual meaning of changing from small to large. If they were already big, they wouldn't be expanding, would they?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  67. Re: Now if only Slashdot would get rid of video ad by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    Game Of War really bugs me, not because I've ever played it and had a problem with the actual game, or because of the ads, but because of the name. It's just lazy. "Game Of War", really? I imagine the first meeting with the new advertising firm.

    "OK, what are we selling here?"

    [slight accent]"Well, we've got a game of war."

    "And a name! 'Game Of War', got it, let's not spend another second thinking about that, now let's talk about whose boobs we're going to show everyone."

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  68. But they are stealing... by vilanye · · Score: 1

    I can't believe anyone actually uses that to try and guilt people into not blocking ads.

  69. Give uploaders the choice by tepples · · Score: 1

    You make a good point. I was mostly thinking of ad-supported sites operated by for-profit companies that may in fact have to pay royalties per play to an upstream licensor. Perhaps a service that hosts videos uploaded by the public should give the uploader (or Content ID claimant) a "Play despite ad blocking" checkbox to allow playback of a "monetized" video when the ad fails to load. Uploaders whose incoming donations exceed ad revenue would turn this on; uploaders without a donation flow might get away with turning it off.

    1. Re:Give uploaders the choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes providing such an option to the actual content producers would go very far to help those "caught in the middle" to either avoid the problem if they don't want it to be their problem, OR to at least make their wishes known to their viewers.
      I know I personally would respect such a choice if I knew it came from the content producer directly and not enforced on everyone by the hosting site like youtube/blip/whatever. And currently unless the producer literally out-right states their wishes somewhere, all we can do is assume and possibly make a wrong choice because of it.

      While on the topic of requesting such new features from the video sites, I would also love to see an option added in to simply PAY for the content directly, one that if utilized would disable advertizing.
      The other choice would be not to pay and thus have advertizing, which IMHO would completely justify the blocking of video watching by those with adblockers on.

      Of course today we have services such as Patreon that have gone far to provide a good option for those of us that want to directly support a content producer, and I have utilized it a lot as at this point the main 10 or so producers I consistently watch all are on it.
      In those cases, even the content producer generally has no issue with ad blockers, and I know in at least two cases those producers have out-right admitted (in email or private notices) to fully understanding why ads are blocked and that they do it too.
      I presume even more have similar feelings, although I'm sure not all.

      From my point of view, I'm glad youtube doesn't do anything more to prevent adblockers for just those situations. But from the video uploaders point of view I can still understand why in general they may dislike that choice Google is pushing on them because I have no doubt most people that block ads have no interest in supporting them in any way.

      For the type of websites you are referring to that are 100% ad driven with no other options, either utilized or even necessarily available to them, unfortunately I have no solution or answer to the situation. It just sucks all around for everyone.
      Not everyone has the self control to just say "If the site is only supported by ads, and I refuse to load ads, then I will simply refrain from going to that site"

  70. Mobile advertisement charges by lehtech · · Score: 1

    While reading both articles about cell phone data usage and the test of Adblock Plus downstream data transmission reduction, I realized that some of the data transmit ion of cell phone apps and cell phone web browsing goes to the mobile advertisements, then aren’t we paying money to be advertise to. Shouldn’t the advertisers pay us money for our mobile data they use just like they pay for TV or print space?

  71. Re: Now if only Slashdot would get rid of video ad by ShaunC · · Score: 2

    The cynic in me wonders whether that was calculated marketing sleaze as opposed to laziness, maybe they're targeting people who try searching for Game of Thrones. The various app stores all have auto-suggest, so you start typing in "game of" and get other suggestions including Game of War.

    --
    Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  72. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by sims+2 · · Score: 0

    You have never heard of carriage fees have you?

    The cable company even has to pay for rights to local broadcast tv. Yeah you can get it for free with an antenna but if you have cable you have to pay for it because the cable company is required by law to pay for it.

    Cable company's get to pay by the network not by the channel they don't get a la carte pricing so it gets passed on to us.

    Suddenlink recently dropped viacom due to a carriage fee disagreement they said that if they were to agree to the terms they wanted our cable bills would double in 2 years...I for one am glad they didn't cave to viacom's demands even though i do miss nick..

    I doubt i will ever see a la carte cable service but i do think they are going to screw themselves out of a job trying to keep their old business model going everyone is slowly moving to broadband services that do let them choose what they want to watch and when and without charging an extra 10/mo rental for a dvr.

    And i'm looking at you slingtv that is NOT a la carte you're still stuck on this !@#$ package mentality.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  73. Re: Now if only Slashdot would get rid of video ad by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    I doubt that a game with a $40 million annual advertising budget, including Super Bowl ads, would rely on mistaking them for something else. They're obviously trying to spread their name, I just think they chose a really lazy name. From what I hear from reviewers, it also sounds like their gameplay is equally lazy, but put Kate Upton's boobs on TV and they earn $600 million with a shit cash-grab game.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  74. Remember dollar movies? by tepples · · Score: 1

    There is no evidence that new episodes of "New Girl" are available at any price to Netflix

    Only because FOX is bigger than NFLX. When publicly traded corporations are involved, everything has a price. Netflix just happens to be at a lower end of the market, buying rights once the royalties are cheap enough. Do you remember second-run theaters? They would show movies at a deeply discounted ticket price because studios charged a smaller royalty to show films that had already finished their first theatrical run. It's a form of urgency-driven price discrimination. In this case, Hulu is to full price theaters as Netflix is to dollar theaters.

    Amazon Prime

    Amazon's pay-per-episode model.

    Amazon has both the pay-per-episode model and the Netflix-clone that Prime subscribers get. I was referring to Prime.

    1. Re:Remember dollar movies? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      In this case, Hulu is to full price theaters as Netflix is to dollar theaters.

      Since Fox (who jointly owns Hulu) actually holds the copyright and distribution rights, it's not directly comparable to the theater situation. It's more akin to television networks, where the networks themselves hold exclusive distribution rights: Fox will air their episodes on their television network, exclusively, and they provide no option for their competitor networks to air that show at the same time. After some time, however, they may sell the rights to air their shows to other networks.

      Amazon has both the pay-per-episode model and the Netflix-clone that Prime subscribers get. I was referring to Prime.

      The only thing extra that Prime offers, in the video realm, is access to some older content without paying per episode. I'm not aware of Prime offering access to any new content without asking for extra payment. I have Prime, and it looks like they want $2 per episode ($35/season) for the last (current?) season of "New Girl".

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    2. Re:Remember dollar movies? by tepples · · Score: 1

      After some time, however, they may sell the rights to air their shows to other networks.

      In other words, the dollar movie model. New seasons are more "expensive", requiring both paying and watching ads, while old seasons are sold to flat-rate aggregators that require only paying, such as Amazon Prime and Netflix. I have a feeling we're in violent agreement, just with a few misunderstood words in the way.

    3. Re:Remember dollar movies? by chihowa · · Score: 1

      It's the syndication model. There may be a price for everything, but exclusivity is enforced by the hypothetical price being outrageously high (~$2/ep would kill Netflix). The dollar model presumes that the dollar theater could pay the same price as the expensive theater and get the same access and that both of them are negotiating with a third-party rights holder.

      Unless the amount of money that Hulu is getting for each ad is shockingly high (It's $25-30 CPM), the cost for Netflix to acquire similar rights would be fairly reasonable and they would have likely already done so. Since the holders of the media distribution rights actually own Hulu, it's likely that Hulu is not paying the same price for new shows that Netflix would have to pay (hypothetically, if such an offer was even realistically on the table).

      If breaking exclusivity was just a matter of being a bigger company, then Hulu would show Netflix's exclusive content. The key part of my argument, which you keep skirting around, is that Hulu is owned by the media companies and that their exclusive access to those companies' content comes from that fact and not that their ads are allowing them to pay exorbitant royalties.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    4. Re:Remember dollar movies? by tepples · · Score: 1

      If breaking exclusivity was just a matter of being a bigger company, then Hulu would show Netflix's exclusive content.

      My idea was that if Netflix were several times bigger, it could buy one of the Hulu partners.

    5. Re:Remember dollar movies? by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Prime does offer access to Amazon's original shows; the best known of those are Alpha House and Transparent. There is not much new content from non-Amazon producers.

  75. Google Contributor has a waitlist by tepples · · Score: 1

    While on the topic of requesting such new features from the video sites, I would also love to see an option added in to simply PAY for the content directly, one that if utilized would disable advertizing.

    Google Contributor is supposed to do this, replacing Google ad units with "thank you" boxes. I've been on its waitlist for weeks.

    Not everyone has the self control to just say "If the site is only supported by ads, and I refuse to load ads, then I will simply refrain from going to that site"

    Especially if the major web search engines refuse to give end users a way to filter out results that are "only supported by ads".

  76. Install TorrentBlock Plus by MPRIAA! by CanEHdian · · Score: 1

    World-renowned developers MPAA and RIAA banded together and are proud to present: TorrentBlock Plus! Download now for Firefox, IE and Chrome! This browser add-on will reduce your network traffic by blocking out magnet links and links ending on .torrent!

    An unnamed DOJ government official used a thick envelope that he happened to have in his inside pocket to make a quick calculation that shows network traffic can be reduced by as much as 50% (actual results may vary. See details in store.)

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  77. A good hosts file .. by nickweller · · Score: 1

    A good hosts file would block a lot of these ...

  78. Re: Now if only Slashdot would get rid of video ad by HiThere · · Score: 1

    War is a really stupid card game that I used to occasionally play with my sister when we were really bored. (If you don't know it, don't bother. Even an 8 year old thought it was stupid and pointless.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  79. Hosts do it better for FAR less... apk by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    * :)

    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/...

    "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

    P.S.=> 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!)

    ...apk

  80. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less, consumes more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  81. Ublock does less & consumes more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

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

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

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

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

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

    What's better?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  82. AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts 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

  83. Adblock by OmegaWolf747 · · Score: 1

    Adblock is awesome at blocking those pesky ads and autoplay videos. Indispensable for modern Web use.

    --
    I charge forward recklessly, leaving chaos in my wake.
  84. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    I wonder how hard it'd be for the cableTV operators to allow not a la carte pricing per channel, but per network. So, if Viacom is a dick and basic cable will cost double for that, make subscribers pay double if they want the optional Viacom package with all the channels that Viacom broadcasts, and if the subscribers don't want to pay double, they don't get any Viacom channels. Then when Viacom doesn't get much revenue because not many subscribers are willing to pay double for their basic cable bill, then Viacom will adjust its pricing.

  85. Trashy Celebrity Block by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 3, Funny

    One of the great reasons to use Adblock Plus or equivalent is that you can write custom scripts in addition to the stock lists that it uses. All mention the Kardashians, Kanye West, and their ilk has vanished from my screens. Life is good.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  86. AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

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

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

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts 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

  87. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

    1. Re: AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question. Are you considering porting to Mac and Linux?

    2. Re:AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My router handles all of that shit without wasting my PC's resources like hosts does.

    3. Re:AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does hosts protect against phishing?

  88. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less, eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  89. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less, consumes more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  90. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (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 by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

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

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

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

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better by FAR (see above)?

    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

  91. Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communique to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (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 by a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (e.g. stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory use vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on Ghostery doing all that let alone as well as hosts do!

    APK

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

    Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

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

    ClarityRay DETECTS browser addons like Ghostery & blocks them (not hosts) via native browser methods.

    What's better by FAR (see above)?

    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

  92. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less, consumes more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  93. Ublock does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

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

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

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

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

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

    What's better?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  94. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  95. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by Smauler · · Score: 1

    We have 12 minutes maximum per hour of advertising on ITV, C4 and C5 because they're regulated by ofcom, not because of competition. They're defined as public service broadcasters, whereas all the other channels aren't. There's actually a limit of 8 minutes an hour on average between 6pm and 11pm, I've just looked this up. What the channels actually do is (essentially) not advertise on less popular programmes, so they can use the 12 minutes per hour later. I'd always wondered why there were so few adverts on the cricket highlights on channel 5. Unfortunately "advertising" does not include self-promotion, or promotion of sister channels, so the cricket advert breaks are mostly filled with that.

    I'm not sure what the benefits of being a public service broadcaster are exactly compared to all of the other channels that don't have to abide by these rules and have far more adverts. The channels which show loads of American programmes use the same 1/2 hour slots. The Big Bang Theory, as an example, has a running time of as little as 18 minutes, resulting in 24 minutes of adverts or other cruft per hour.

  96. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  97. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  98. Hosts = "the Superior Warrior" vs. addons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  99. No shit. by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: the study was funded by Adblock Plus.

    Well, they needed the study for that.

    You could have also asked any long-term power-users from the times of dial-up Internet.

    Back then I ran a NAT + Squid web proxy + custom ad-cutting rules in Squid, and it was reducing the amount of traffic by pretty hefty margin. In fact, it was so much, that some ad-laden web sites were actually becoming responsive. And no endless "Waiting for ..." messages in the status bar. (Granted, pretty quickly the ad agencies invested in the capacities and stopped being the bottleneck, but still they were a huge drain on the bandwidth.)

    Today, I use AdBlock with rather long list of JavaScript blocking rules. Makes some unusable web-sites actually useful. Previously it was the limited bandwidth of the modem lines. Today it is literally seconds some websites take to render (while CPU is at 100% load; that actually bothers me more). The only problem that in the past I could reliably block the offenders, today I cannot: JavaScript and HTML5 shit is totally different ballpark and at times I wish all the hipster "web-developers" would just die.

    --
    All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  100. Vector animations by tepples · · Score: 1

    Do even need Flash to be installed any more?

    Homestar Runner and Weebl and Bob and animutations are vector animations in Flash format. Rendering them to pixels and encoding the pixels to video is possible but bloats them by a factor of roughly ten. Did the animutation scene ever warm up to Edge Animate?

  101. Adblock and ISA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I manage a really small network - only a couple of servers, and 10^2 workstations - that is connected to the outside world via a T-1 grade link. On my workstation, I use Adblock. On our ISA server, we have a custom advertising blocker domain list running. About 20% of our available bandwidth used to be consumed by web-junk. Now, its about 2-3%. I'd say it works.

  102. Re:AlmostAllAdsBlocked+/Edge does less/eats more by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

    Who gives a shit about your stupid fucking program? No One.

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  103. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either there are ads and the content is "free" (sans my time) or the content costs money and there are no ads. I won't pay money to something that has ads, nor will I view the content, I'll just skip on over to something better.

  104. Re:If neither party is willing to foot the whole b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *sad violin*

    Not my problem. A company puts out a product with a price on it, that's all I need to know. If ads come with a product or service I have paid for, I'll get a refund and never do business with them again.

  105. APK shills spams tells lies talks shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fuck off you loser

  106. APK: inferior, idiotic, retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can fuck off with your lies and deceit, disgusting shill.

  107. APK's software is shit, APK is a liar & a thie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK can't code so he stealz it from others then passes it off as his own.

    APK is so cool! APK is the best! We love APK, his software rulez the world.

  108. Re:AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ = inferior + souled-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times are you planning on spamming this bullshit?

  109. Re: Now if only Slashdot would get rid of video ad by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    The cynic in me wonders whether that was calculated marketing sleaze as opposed to laziness, maybe they're targeting people who try searching for Game of Thrones. The various app stores all have auto-suggest, so you start typing in "game of" and get other suggestions including Game of War.

    Or Game(s)

    (my Windows introduction)
    Installed Win95, opened Internet Explorer and went to Microsoft.com searching for games.

    Just saying there's a large population that would search for just the word GAME(S). This is the first time I've heard of "Game of War", I thought it a game. I use a large HOSTS file and have no need of an AD blocker. I also have never had a need to use the "disable ADs" option on /. . The resources saved by using a HOSTS file over a program is substantial.

  110. Lynx still works on many sites, or "mobile view" by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Lynx (and other similar text based browsers) still works as do some for phones and tablets designed to strip out large graphical elements. That's one workaround for newsfeed sites where you just want the text (eg. news stories just in) and don't want to wait for the ads.
    "Mobile View" is your friend if offered (eg. this news page):
    http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/justin/?pfm=sm

  111. Re: Now if only Slashdot would get rid of video ad by dbIII · · Score: 1

    War is a really stupid card game that I used to occasionally play with my sister when we were really bored. (If you don't know it, don't bother. Even an 8 year old thought it was stupid and pointless.)

    So the song is right, it really is good for absolutely nothing :)

  112. click to load plugin for chrome (in prefs) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    settings / advanced / privacy / content settings / plugins
    (*) let me choose when to run plugin content
    it doesn't load flash and friends by default until one clicks on it.
    this is a great companion to adblock plus & ghostery.

  113. Thanks tepples: For the BEST hosts file? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & 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!

    * :)

    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/...

    ---

    "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

    P.S.=> 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... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  114. Ublock does less & consumes more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

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

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

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

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

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

    What's better?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  115. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+/Edge does less/eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can ab+/edge do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+/edge doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+/edge adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  116. They can't do a 'clarityray' on hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  117. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+/Edge does less/eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  118. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  119. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  120. Yes, & due to Object Pascal use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: It's going to be fairly easy - Delphi makes it so (for MacOS X & Android) - for "straight Linux" so-to-speak, the code will port ALMOST DIRECTLY via Lazarus + Free Pascal also - but, I imagine that by Delphi's next release (since it does pretty much *everything* else in the "more major players" already as noted above in Windows, MacOS X, & Android variants)? I won't have to use FreePascal + the Lazarus IDE for it either...

    * The ONLY things that'll be different for the most part will be some "minor" sockets differences between Win32/64 API & those on the *NIX variants (been there/done THAT here before, so "no biggie") & drive letters vs. mounted devices (been there/done that too, even easier than sockets ports).

    I've only been waiting for Borland/Embarcadero to return to doing Linux again, as they did in Kylix (picture perfect double almost of the Win32 one for Windows - so, I KNOW IT'S DOABLE for them to do again already).

    APK

    P.S.=> And, "there ya go"... apk

  121. Not everyone has a router by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Everyone does have a hosts file by comparison though...

    * :)

    APK

    P.S.=> Hosts aren't WASTING A RESOURCE - they're using one FULLY YOU HAVE ALREADY NATIVELY that DOES THE JOB BETTER THAN ANY OTHER SINGLE "SO-CALLED 'COMPETITOR'" OF MINE DOES (doing FAR more while also using TONS less)!

    Beat THAT with a stick!

    Nobody ever has, ala -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... points I listed there!

    So GOOD LUCK - you'll NEED it (more like a miracle)... apk

  122. After failing @ proving my points wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: You can take your own advice http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    * :)

    (You can't HELP but fail vs. myself, "The Lord of Hosts", so-to-speak... lol, & you KNOW it - hence your "FoAmiNg-@-TeH-MouTh" raging profanity riddled reply in "FruStrAtiOn", lmao!)

    APK

    P.S.=> I see you also ran dry of modpoints eh? No more downmodding my posts nobody can prove wrong for you, lol... & IF you managed to sockpuppet some up?? No biggie there either - I have NO LIMITS on my postings here (unlike other ACs), & I'll just post it again, nullifying your 1 effete retaliatory 'weapon', easily, as always... apk

  123. Who's telling lies now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: You are vs. http://it.slashdot.org/comment... & Mr. Steven Burn of MalwareBytes' hpHosts has SEEN & VERIFIED my sourcecode (& yes, it's ALL my own)...

    * I can't help it if "lil' ole' me" can RUN RINGS around your "Open SORES" heros by writing up a system that utilizes what you already have NATIVELY that does FAR MORE for FAR LESS, while operating from a higher cpu serviced layer of operations (thus faster) in kernelmode vs. layering on "MoAr" stupidily as a browser addon which increases messagepassing overheads, cpu + RAM usage & more (yet doing less, lol!).

    APK

    P.S.=> Face facts: You WISH you were me - & by the way: Where's YOUR WORK for comparison? OH, that's right - it's not even in existence, lol, you cowardly no balls little skulking unidentifiable jealous little ac trolling worm (lmao)... guess StackExchange (the code source for weasels like you) hasn't written up a program like mine for you, eh? Seeing as you project your OWN "MODUS OPERANDI" here? I'd say that's spot-on correct from me, regarding "the trolling ne'er-do-well" likes of YOU (lowest of the LOW online)... apk

  124. Who's telling lies now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: You are vs. http://it.slashdot.org/comment... & Mr. Steven Burn of MalwareBytes' hpHosts has SEEN & VERIFIED my sourcecode (& yes, it's ALL my own) + links I used from reputable sources in that link whose valid technical points you can't touch PROVE YOU WRONG, easily.

    * I can't help it if "lil' ole' me" can RUN RINGS around your "Open SORES" heros by writing up a system that utilizes what you already have NATIVELY that does FAR MORE for FAR LESS, while operating from a higher cpu serviced layer of operations (thus faster) in kernelmode vs. layering on "MoAr" stupidily in SLOWER USERMODE as a browser addon which increases messagepassing overheads, cpu + RAM usage & more (yet doing less, lol!).

    APK

    P.S.=> Face facts: You WISH you were me - & by the way: Where's YOUR WORK for comparison? OH, that's right - it's not even in existence, lol, you cowardly no balls little skulking unidentifiable jealous little ac trolling worm (lmao)... guess StackExchange (the code source for weasels like you) hasn't written up a program like mine for you, eh? Seeing as you project your OWN "MODUS OPERANDI" here? I'd say that's spot-on correct from me, regarding "the trolling ne'er-do-well" likes of YOU (lowest of the LOW online)... apk

  125. Ublock does less & eats more vs. hosts... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

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

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

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

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

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

    What's better?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  126. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  127. Ublock does less & eats more vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

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

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

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

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

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

    What's better?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  128. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  129. AdBlock+ does less & eats more vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  130. You do apparently... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're scared shitless of it & can't prove me wrong -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    * :)

    (Truer words were NEVER spoken on /. , as your futile effete illogical profanity laden b.s. fails vs. what's in the link above, lol ...)

    APK

    P.S.=> 100's here use hosts files by the way, moron so "eat your words" & DO A BETTER ONE YOURSELF (you unskilled "ne'er-do-well") - oh, that's right: You don't have the skills in computing to do so, lol... apk

  131. AB+ does less & eats more vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  132. No Ads by whipnet · · Score: 1

    I take it one step further and use NoScript with FF. Nothing runs. Sometimes I'll allow scripts to run wide-open and find most of the internet is almost un-viewable by all the clutter. *

  133. What about false positives? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Like blocked parts on the web sites, things not working, etc.? I see those often. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  134. ANYTHING to block ads! by iq145 · · Score: 1

    The whole world has become advertising! i hate it...

  135. I work there and haven't heard about this by Rob+Bos · · Score: 1

    I do desktop support for one of the larger departments on the SFU campus, and this is the first I've heard of it. It is in no way universal to SFU; I'm pretty sure I would have heard about any large-scale test deployments of this nature.

    I have pitched this idea a couple times, though. If someone else on campus has approved it, that's a huge boost to getting it done in my department.

    1. Re:I work there and haven't heard about this by Rob+Bos · · Score: 1

      The study was done by the SNF New Media Lab at SFU and involves about six computers studied over a few months and does not reflect general SFU policy.

  136. Similar to TV Commercials by EricTheO · · Score: 0

    This study reminds me that 25% to35% of our TV viewing time per hour is taken up with commercials.

    --
    -Eric
  137. By blocking sources or payload sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I fill mine from various antiphish sources OR junkmail I get also as another way to populate hosts vs. phish & spam (you'd think they'd change the payload or sending sources more too, but many don't).

    APK

    P.S.=> If it's served up as hostname/domainname based? Hosts can block that... apk

  138. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ = Inferior & 'Souled-Out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apkhosts = already on every device natively

  139. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ = Inferior & 'Souled-Out' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  140. Ublock does less & eats more vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dyndns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (4 reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you by dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded favs
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do those & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu + memory use

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on UBlock doing it as well or @ all!

    APK

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

    Ublock's NOT as efficient:

    Hosts @ 3mb-11mb w/ current data vs. threats + ads - test yourself using my program.

    UBlock uses 63++ MB -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

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

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it detecting it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

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

    What's better?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  141. Re:AlmostAllAdsBlocked+/Edge does less/eats more by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

    This is the goatse.cx of text, lol

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  142. Re:Ublock does less & eats more vs. hosts... a by ZenDragon · · Score: 1

    What the hell is this response? Some kind of attempt at advertising? Made with Borland Delphi? Really? People still use that? lol!

  143. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apkpaid to not do its job

  144. "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    APK

    P.S.=> It's not easy being world class here you know. Invincibility vs. trolls such as yourself no longer even make it interesting or challenging - Nobody can invalidate what's said there in that link above (how could they? It's fact, & truth, from reputable sources that are concrete, verifiable,+ undeniable)... apk

    1. Re:"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" apk by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

      Hi goatse.

      --
      Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  145. Re:Ublock does less & eats more vs. hosts... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the truth.

  146. AlmostAllAdsBlocked+ does less & eats more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
    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. phish
    10.) Protect vs. caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily controlled data
    16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it + hosts = already on every device natively.

    APK

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

    Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

    +

    Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    What's best?

    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/...

    +

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

    ... apk

  147. "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" Forrest... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & this while I LMAO @ U + your weak b.s. http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    * :)

    (I just LOVE to see whimps like you resort to the ONLY THING YOU KNOW vs. truth & fact - trollish bullshit!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Pitiful dolt that you are... lol!

    ... apk

    1. Re:"Rinse, Lather, & Repeat" Forrest... apk by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

      Copy Pasta much?

      You're the type who absolutely, positively "must" have the last word, aren't ya? Replying proves it, lol

      --
      Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  148. Quit projecting & "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & this, Forrest -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    * After all - you just CAN'T prove me wrong... lol!

    APK