Slashdot Mirror


Advertising Companies Accused of Deliberately Slowing Page-load Times For Profit

An anonymous reader writes: An industry insider has told Business Insider of his conviction that ad-serving companies deliberately prolong the 'auctioning' process for ad spots when a web-page loads. They do this to maximize revenue by allowing automated 'late-comers' to participate beyond the 100ms limit placed on the decision-making process. The unnamed source, a principal engineer at a global news company (whose identity and credentials were confirmed by Business Insider), concluded with the comment: "My entire team of devs and testers mostly used Adblock when developing sites, just because it was so painful otherwise." Publishers use 'daisy-chaining' to solicit bids from the most profitable placement providers down to the 'B-list' placements, and the longer the process is run, the more likely that the web-page will be shown with profitable advertising in place.

394 comments

  1. Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by onkelonkel · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock. Oh, wait, I didn't feel guilty before I learned this.
     
    Rotten Bastards.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I came here to say this, and to add how obvious the solution must be for would be advertisers:

      Instead of dragging my browsing speed down to tortoise level and asking me to like it while watching your adds,

      try making me benefit, even subtly, from viewing your auditions to separate me from the paper in my wallet.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Informative

      Last time I did a reinstall and browsed a bit before installing ad-block(have to experience what the proles do occasionally, right?), I can best describe it as being driven to install it.

      It wasn't just the annoyance of huge ads taking up 3/4 of their front page. It was the incredible load times as well. 100ms? Try a couple seconds on some of the pages I tried.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OK, here's my addition as a would-be advertiser:

      1) Use AdBlock Plus. It will help Web pages to load more quickly.

      2) ???

      3) Profit!

    4. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Z80a · · Score: 1

      To not mention those funny ads that tried funny things like installing trojans, ransomware, bank keyloggers..

    5. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 2

      I think that's 100ms per ad. With lots of ads, you'll easily get into the multi second range.

    6. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jesus Christ don't use AdBlock Pro. They do some pretty shifty shit to try and get paid to let ads around their filters on default configuration.

      Use uBlock. Also use https everywhere. Fuck downgrade attacks.

      You mean shifty shit like say right on their home page:

      Unobtrusive ads aren't being blocked in order to support websites

      And they also provide a checkbox right on the main options page that controls whether to Allow some non-intrusive advertising.

    7. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I think that's 100ms per ad. With lots of ads, you'll easily get into the multi second range.

      All of the ads on the page should be loaded in parallel by your browser, unless it's some sort of weird ad within an ad.

    8. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      Key emphasis on "should". I wouldn't put it past them to do sequential loading in Javascript.

    9. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by bobjr94 · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that since the early days. The ads always load quickest and first, then the content slowly fills in.

    10. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Dear coward

      Jesus Christ don't use AdBlock Pro. They do some pretty shifty shit to try and get paid to let ads around their filters on default configuration.

      What "shifty shit" do "they" do. A current citation would be informative.

      Nice that you include default. The first thing I do when I install it click on the radio button that disables the default "show acceptable ads". (second sentence)

      Use uBlock.[...].

      Interesting. You say that. A lot. Is that out of altruism?

      Which uBlock are you promoting? There are two. uBlock Origin (or uBlock) and uBlock.

      I tried both uBlocks, and found they had a number of failings for my use case. I'll reassess my reasons for not using or recommending it if you show me which reasons are incorrect:-

      • It didn't block as many ads, or pop ups - so it's not as fit for it's stated purpose. That's clearly stated in the documentation - they support the majority of ads in the ABP filters.
      • Neither uBlock support regex filters, which I use a lot.
      • The uBlocks don't support $sitekey
      • ABP removes social buttons
      • ABP stops most tracking
      • ABP has Typo Protection (it has to be added as an extension in Firefox)
      • Caveats: I use ABP in Iceweasel (Firefox) on Linux, all my boxen have >2GB of RAM. I add a lot of extra blocking to the standard filters (and some specifically for /.).

        Balance - I have no interest in support for Chrome. I'll happily trade a few extra MB of RAM usage, or a few microseconds of page load time for improvements in blocking. Not seeing ads, seeing relatively more content, customisability, exploit blocking, and decreased data transfer are high priorities for my use case.

        For people that need something simple for Chrome to block some ads, and run an OS that chews up most of their RAM, and only want to block ads - uBlock Origin is probably the best choice.

        Also use https everywhere.

        I use NoScript - which makes HTTPS Everywhere redundant while giving me extra valuable features. I'd add FlashBlock to the minimal recommended extension - if someone has Fffflash installed.

    11. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is such a difference in browsing traditional mainstream web sites with plain-jane internet explorer and mozilla firefox with adblock (easylist / privacy / social / malware lists) and noscript (with tuning).. once you use a tricked-out firefox, you'd rather go to the library and read a dead tree newspaper than use the internet with internet explorer.

    12. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2

      All of the ads on the page should be loaded in parallel by your browser, unless it's some sort of weird ad within an ad.

      Ad-ception... now I'm scared.

    13. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Choosing whose ads you allow to run and whose you block is the reason why I use https://noscript.net/ in preference to adblock, a bit more work but it lets me choose who ads to run and whose to block. So blocks for intrusive ads (Content first then ad), blocks for just hinting at blocking volume control (seriously how big an asshat are you), blocks for auto running videos (my choice not yours whether or not to watch the video), blocks for shitty product advertisements (be selective in whose products and services you will promote) and, blocks for supporting nasty web sites (don't support bad web sites with advertising revenue). Some of this stuff should be regulated and bad ads and ad agencies should be prosecuted.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That would, you know, require them to find something that actually benefits you. I do not think the advertising industry still has that skill. It seems to me they now rely fully on trying you to convince to buy products you do not need and (originally) did not want.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    15. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by drew_92123 · · Score: 1

      Adblock is fine once you change the default settings, and the element hiding helper is nice too...

      uBlock on the otherhand, while effective, blows chunks when trying to block things when you have to write your own filters in it. I hate having to use something like firebug to try and figure out the name/path of the object to block especially on large complex pages.

      Adblock lets you click and filter... I'll switch back to uBlock if they ever get a proper point and click helper for putting together the filters.

    16. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock

      You should never feel guilty about winning in business or in life. Winning is winning, even if you have to lie, cheat and steal to do it. The wall street boys don't apologize, why should I?

    17. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if only there was an AdBlock Plus to block out those pesky television ads, imagine all the electricity I would save!

    18. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      It was a good post until you wrote "boxen". After that, my filter turned the rest of the words into "blah blah I'm an idiot". Please don't do that again.

    19. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Sequential loading, but also consider that many will delay the page showing until the ad is served or times out.

      If the website is hitting 20 different ad servers & trackers, what are the odds that at least ONE of them is in a less than ideal routing location for your computer, not available, slow, or delayed?

      I mean, blocking all the google, facebook, twitter, and such tracking & 'share this!' code sped up webpages quite well.

      Why the hell would I want to share random posts on an internet forum, such as this, on facebook or whatever?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    20. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I tend to blame slow ad servers more. With as many ad servers, tracking sites, and other crap revenue-generation webpages want to load on my computer, the odds that one of them is offline, slow, or frozen is fairly high. So I end up waiting for it to time out - until I block it and my computer doesn't even try.

      Hell, one site I hit had FOUR auto-play videos on it - 2 of them the same ad that played at slightly different times, indicating that it wasn't even nice enough to pull it from the same location. Then it had the video about the article, AND a general news site feed.

      The site was so horribly unusable that I could only conclude that the designers didn't view it without ad-blockers themselves.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    21. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It was a good post until you wrote "boxen". After that, my filter turned the rest of the words into "blah blah I'm an idiot". Please don't do that again.

      The good news is your critical thinking badge is in the mail.

      The bad news is you don't qualify for a consolation prize in the "not taking yourself too seriously" competition. But that's news you should be used to by now.

      Ironically, given the MOD, the wisdom of Theophrastus is all greek to you, never-the-less I thankyou for your pointless contribution.

    22. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by KGIII · · Score: 2

      They need to make that available on Chrome. Well, I use Opera but I can steal Chrome extensions and install them just fine. In fact, I have an extension that lets me install Chrome extensions which is a bit recursive seeming. Anyhow, I am stuck using ScriptLite if I want to have anything that functions close to NoScript with my preferred browser. ScriptLite works but does not allow much in the way of specifics. You either whitelist a domain or you do not. So, I dumped it and installed the uMatrix extension which is fantastic, by the way, but is rather complicated and takes some time to dial in.

      I would have a hard time suggesting anyone use uMatix even though it is fantastic. It, in a way, reminds me of the earlier editions of Outpost Firewall, from Agnitum, which is a fantastic piece of software but needs configuration and knowledge to really make use of it effectively. It gives great experience right out of the box but if you want to customize that experience or to unblock or block certain things then it becomes quite a bit more difficult. Outpost is much better now, and is a whole suite, but uMatrix is not for the faint of heart.

      I do have Firefox installed and configured. I do use it once in a while. It is not my preferred browser though the add-on ecosystem is glorious. I once donated a bunch to the Mozilla Foundation (I guess they put my name in a newspaper ad, I forget which paper or when and I am not sure if I put my real name on it as I am wont to do) and the money was well spent. I used the browser a bit then and liked it but, today, it really has changed in many ways. I have reverted to simply using Opera almost exclusively though I have other browsers with different configurations for different use scenarios.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    23. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice that you include default. The first thing I do when I install it click on the radio button that disables the default "show acceptable ads". (second sentence)

      ... Whereas I really like this feature and make sure it is on. I do believe advertising could have been an acceptable way to pay for content, but it is a tragedy of the commons thing where some advertisers abused it to the point of ruining it for everyone. Every once in a while I find a site that uses responsible advertising practices and I am fine with supporting them this way. This is one part of that, but I even unblock ads on some sites, believe it or not.

    24. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The problem with the "Unobtrusive ads aren't being blocked in order to support websites" is that it's complete horseshit. To ABP unobtrusive means "paid us money". For example Taboola ads are some of the most disgusting clickbait "social" ads around that ABP allows through by default despite them failing any reasonable definition of unobtrusive.

      At least there's a checkbox to fix this brain damage but ABP has seriously undermined itself by taking payments from the very source that it exists to block.

    25. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment is not an informed one. Here is why:

      > It didn't block as many ads, or pop ups

      uBlock uses EasyList, which is what ABP uses to "block ads, or pop ups". Please provide examples in support of your statement.

      > Neither uBlock support regex filters

      False.

      > ABP removes social buttons

      If you enabled Fanboy's Social Blocking List. Same for uBlock: enable Fanboy's Social Blocking List.

      > ABP stops most tracking

      uBlock stops more tracking. For instance Google Analytics is blocked more thoroughly by uBlock.

      > Balance - I have no interest in support for Chrome

      uBlock is available for Firefox.

    26. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do both, layers of blocking, equals layers of security.

    27. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Most browsers have a limit to the number of threads it will use, so with a lot of images and scripts and random stuff it is easily possible for ads to slow down loading resources.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    28. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by samwichse · · Score: 1

      I have to admit, I've actually bought two things from clicking directly on ads this week. My browser has adblock with the "allow reasonable ads" setting checked.

      Both were simple, static ads, related to what I was currently viewing. This is OK.

      Clicking on those stupid background check, sleezy bouncing-around, whatever BS or ANYTHING that pops over my content? Not ever, ever going to happen. I usually just leave those sites immediately.

    29. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by theArtificial · · Score: 2

      I'll second uMatrix, I enjoy the granularity it offers and don't really mind the added steps of managing whitelists, it's well worth the trade off in my opinion. The uMatrix developer also makes uBlock which is a comparable adblock whatever sans the paid exceptions list. With TamperMonkey running in addition to that I've got a pretty sweet client side setup - bring on the JS for my debugging pleasure.

      I'm awaiting Operas return, hopefully once the kinks with the browser engine have been sorted out it'll be smooth sailing for features around it. I used to use Firefox a bunch more and now I seldom find myself using it.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    30. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by lactose99 · · Score: 1, Informative

      He is right though, "boxen" is idiot-speak.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    31. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " non-intrusive advertising" is an Oxymoron.

    32. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to blame slow ad servers more. With as many ad servers, tracking sites, and other crap revenue-generation webpages want to load on my computer, the odds that one of them is offline, slow, or frozen is fairly high. So I end up waiting for it to time out - until I block it and my computer doesn't even try.

      Hell, one site I hit had FOUR auto-play videos on it - 2 of them the same ad that played at slightly different times, indicating that it wasn't even nice enough to pull it from the same location. Then it had the video about the article, AND a general news site feed.

      The site was so horribly unusable that I could only conclude that the designers didn't view it without ad-blockers themselves.

      This is the actual case for most people experiencing slow load times. You can check for yourself on most browsers, down in the lower left-hand corner, it will often be showing something like "waiting for https://cdn.jsfbcdn.com/3154jiod...". I don't imagine there is even a single person here who experiences multi-second page loads *just* because of ads. If they are, it's their own GPU having issues rendering all the things. The developer spoken to here is talking about having to wait more than a fraction of a second, which is annoying when you're loading pages over and over in rapid succession.

    33. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apk's winning against adblock shills and he's not lying cheating or stealing http://news.slashdot.org/comme... by using truth and facts against off topic trolls and their technically unjustified minusmods of his posts which illustrate they're helpless against him. You downmod his posts and don't prove him wrong? He posts again until you run out of those modpoints of yours and you lose left with nothing. That's what we all see along with points of fact apk posts from reputable sources in his posts you can't hide by unjustifiable downmods of apk's posts. Do you think otherwise? Prove apk wrong. You can't and we all know it. You have failed miserably.

    34. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need bribed inferior almostalladblock. Hosts do more for less which apk's proven http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7755483&cid=50202027 since all you do is troll him and downmod him but can't prove him wrong. You trolls aren't very successful against what's in that link.

    35. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by KGIII · · Score: 2

      It is not too bad now. It is up to version 31.something. This box has the beta track on it. One has the dev track. Another is stable. Add the extension to install Chrome extensions and it is quite customizable.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    36. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I don't need to prove him wrong. His constant spamming shows that he lacks morals, business ethics or consideration for other people, and that means his software is getting nowhere fucking near my PC.

      He's a twat and his spam is obnoxious, irritating and (due to the point above) totally irrelevant. I can't and don't trust him or his software.

    37. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You downmod him like weasels, fail to prove his points wrong, so he reposts again showing you you're powerless as he has no limits on his post counts unlike most ac users here and you do on your modpoints regardless of how many sockpuppets you have. If you don't prove apk wrong, it shows how wrong and weak you are.

    38. Re:Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APK has been proved wrong over and over and over. The problem is that it's not possible to have any kind of discussion with him. APK just ignores whatever you say, immediately declares victory, and posts wall after wall of poorly formatted, barely coherent ramblings.

    39. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by allo · · Score: 1

      Its a matter of attitude and trust. The feature is the opposite of what the addon is meant to do. They take money from the advertisers, who want into the list. And the checkbox is checked by default.
      Enough reasons for adblock edge (same as plus, just without this BS) or ublock (faster than both)

    40. Re: Now I won't feel guilty about using Adblock by allo · · Score: 1

      > Neither uBlock support regex filters, which I use a lot.
      it does
      > The uBlocks don't support $sitekey
      dunno what it is
      > ABP removes social buttons
      > ABP stops most tracking
      here you went retard. Its a matter of lists you added. ublock has some choice per default, where you just need to make checkmarks.

  2. "industry insider" by fliptw · · Score: 1

    this "industry insider" most likely works for Business Insider.

    1. Re:"industry insider" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this "industry insider" most likely works for Business Insider.

      Don't you feel stupid wearing that tinfoil hat?

    2. Re:"industry insider" by ZipK · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't you feel stupid wearing that tinfoil hat?

      Not if you cock it at a jaunty angle.

    3. Re:"industry insider" by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Then don't you feel jaunty and stupid at the same time? Although with enough jaunty then you might not care anymore.

    4. Re:"industry insider" by infolation · · Score: 2

      Don't you feel stupid wearing that tinfoil hat?

      Not if you cock it at a jaunty angle.

      Then you leave the critical 'side' of your head vulnerable to a well-aimed 'jaunty' attack while your defences are down.

      Ensure your tinfoil covers down to neck level at *all* times.

  3. There we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parasites abuse the system for monetary gains, news at 11.

    Can you imagine what the human race could accomplish if there was no concept of money? Imagine all those backstabbing leeches no longer having any incentive to wasting ressources, to block innovators and inventors, etc.

    1. Re:There we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parasites abuse the system for monetary gains, news at 11.

      Can you imagine what the human race could accomplish if there was no concept of money? Imagine all those backstabbing leeches no longer having any incentive to wasting ressources, to block innovators and inventors, etc.

      That would be nice... Will NEVER happen.

    2. Re:There we go again by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Fiat money is just a handy, fungible way to store wealth earned by one's labor. I can take the value of my repair of Mrs. Jones system and trade it for groceries or cable with HBO.

      A society as diverse and populated as ours would crumble without a universal way to settle accounts. How would Walmart pay its Chinese suppliers? It is no accident all major empires in written and remembered history evolved past the barter system.

      All that and money is how we keep score.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:There we go again by sims+2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I actually thought that was his sig.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    4. Re:There we go again by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Imagine if all the effort and resources put into advertising were instead redirected to productive purposes.

    5. Re:There we go again by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Communism?

      You'll end up with most people spending most of their time working their niche talents while a few benefit from doing nothing but "lead"

    6. Re:There we go again by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      And - how does that differ from life in the US? Most people . . . niche talents . . . few doing nothing but leading. Especially now that young adults find it necessary to work two or more part time jobs to support themselves, most people do spend most of their time working their niche talents.

      --
      "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
    7. Re:There we go again by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Imagine if all the effort and resources put into advertising were instead redirected to productive purposes.

      You mean more productive like popups from every website saying "Support our site! Now that all internet Advertising has been banned, you have to pay us 17 cents for every page you view".

    8. Re:There we go again by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I'd be good with that. Give everyone an incentive to never go to web sites again, or at least stop browsing mindlessly and instead pay attention to what they are doing. Not a bad thing. Society has functioned without web sites, and it will again (and pretty soon too as it's all moving to phones/tablets now anyway).

    9. Re:There we go again by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I'd be good with that. Give everyone an incentive to never go to web sites again, or at least stop browsing mindlessly and instead pay attention to what they are doing. Not a bad thing. Society has functioned without web sites, and it will again (and pretty soon too as it's all moving to phones/tablets now anyway).

      Yet you visited Slashdot long enough to not only click through to this article, but also post 7 comments.

      For someone so keen on seeing the death of the web, you sure use it alot. Or when you said "Give everyone..." did you just mean "everyone else", because your rules don't apply to yourself?

      Society has functioned without web sites, and it will again (and pretty soon too as it's all moving to phones/tablets now anyway

      In what way do you envision phones and tablets making the web go away? I browse the web on my tablet and phone much more than on my computer.

    10. Re:There we go again by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has said that I can opt out of ads. Which I don't bother doing since I have adblock, but... If it starts charing $0.17 a page, then I'll stop visiting. Other useful sites I may stick around with $0.17 a page (and it has to be per page, not per third party script/gif).

      People cut the cord from cable companies which used to be considered unthinkable. So I think people will be able to wean themselves away from fluff web sites too.

      But think of it this way, I'm already paying over $50/month to get on the web. Why should I be told that I have to pay extra or view ads just to click on a link to some bozo's blog? Worse, why should advertisers be allowed to STEAL my bandwidth and time by piggybacking on my ISP? Broadcast over the airwaves is fine with me, as long as I can look away from the TV and go get a sandwich; but borrowing my internet to show me an ad that I can't skip, that's just immoral.

    11. Re:There we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most primitive societies evolved past the barter system to a form of community credit. You can use salt, shells, gold or the word of someone in good standing.

      However what does that have to do with fiat money specifically? It is not required that money be fiat in order to represent a store of wealth - in point of fact fiat is only a claim on the future tax income of a nation state.

    12. Re:There we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you are confused. to you, clicking through comments is evidence of something, to me it is meaningless drivel. i may use the websites with adblock. try to charge me $5 a month and you'll discover the strength of my 15 year daily habit. Ultimately zero fucks would be given and I'd easily find something on/off the internet, for free, that would accomplish my goal "to loaf" for awhile.

    13. Re:There we go again by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I dare say we use the barter system all the time. I use it more frequently than most. Just because we have a bit of paper to indicate a value does not mean we are not bartering. Paper is just one item of value. You can even barter at big box stores (I understand - I have never tried it) and ask for a different price or ask them to match a sales price. You need to ask a manager but you can and, I understand, they may listen.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:There we go again by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Give me stuff for free because I am special!!!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:There we go again by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I'll buy that argument.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    16. Re:There we go again by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Sure. Watch broadcast TV, listen to the radio, walk down the street. All free. All have ads though, but in every case you can opt out of the ads and refuse to watch or listen to them. In no case are you required to view to an ad, it doesn't suck up extra gasoline from your car, you can't get malware, etc. These are background ads, ignorable, totally unlike web ads.

      Oh, and I pay subscription for some of those services too, including "free" radio. I'm not freeloading like the web advertisers are.

    17. Re:There we go again by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Nah, the advertisers are paying. They pay the site owners/operators.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  4. Ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean like in the 90s?

  5. Ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sorry, but, what's an ad?" --Hosts

    "Dunno, lulz" --AdblockPlus

  6. Page loading has always been far slower with ads by Alok · · Score: 1

    Either everyone is breaking that 100ms limit, or else it is per ad and adds up if the browser is say, loading 5 at a time on a page with 20 ads. I have noticed sluggish loading on ad-laden sites for a very long time now, I keep trying to disable AdBlock to support sites and regret it soon after.

    This also happens when the site is using the originally text-based Google AdWords - which btw has become worse over time, with some video ads being served and also some rogue publishers which aren't always caught (one site I regularly visit has semi-frequent complaints from users about problematic ads when they disable ABP to support it).

      I suspect that besides just the ads loading time, they are increasingly using more detailed analytics js which also contributes to site slowness, in order to market data for higher premiums.

  7. Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slow loading ads was the primary reason I turned to adblock in the first place. CPU intensive javascript was the reason I turned to NoScript. Been happy every since. Except when trying to read frickin' BI articles. Assholes.

    Seems like a service level agreement might help a website keep advertising networks in line, though.

  8. Roadside signs by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Funny

    My eyeballs are mine to keep

    Not for you to make a dime a peep

    Do we fight them, or are we sheep?

    Burma Shave

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:Roadside signs by sconeu · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Sure... now YOU are posting ads here... <grin/>

      I bet you put a 3 second delay on it too!!!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:Roadside signs by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Burma Shear!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Roadside signs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about, I don't see any advertisement, but then again I run AdBlock and NoScript.

  9. Youtube by sims+2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I clicked on a AD for a video on the YouTube homepage and you know what? It made me watch an AD before I could watch the AD I clicked on.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re: Youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how half the YouTube ads are for YouTube channels so there's no standards. Sometimes the idiot in the ad will be using profane language. They really think I'm going to click in that? Yeah right.

    2. Re:Youtube by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I still haven't gone to the effort to block these on my TV. But normally it was 4 or 5 seconds before I could skip them, which was usually before you even knew what the ad was about. But the last week I've seen a few that refuse to let me skip the ads, AND the ads were entirely unrelated to the content as well. Screw em. Let youtube go back to being free with no one making money from them, hobbyists only with no youtube pros. Sorry PewDiePie, you need a real job.

    3. Re:Youtube by ndavis · · Score: 1

      I still haven't gone to the effort to block these on my TV. But normally it was 4 or 5 seconds before I could skip them, which was usually before you even knew what the ad was about. But the last week I've seen a few that refuse to let me skip the ads, AND the ads were entirely unrelated to the content as well. Screw em. Let youtube go back to being free with no one making money from them, hobbyists only with no youtube pros. Sorry PewDiePie, you need a real job.

      I have to say my favorite is when I brought up a trailer for a kids movie on YouTube and before that it played an advertisement for some horror movie. Yes you heard that right before watching a trailer for a kids movie they showed a movie that made my 5 year old scared because I couldn't skip it for 5 SECONDS.

    4. Re:Youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, somebody has to pay for the infrastructure necessary to make it possible to force you to watch ads. Who better to pay for that than the victim?

    5. Re:Youtube by Mahldcat · · Score: 1

      You have a way to block the youtube ads? What do you utilize to do this? (I've also noticed that more and more yt ads no longer allow you to skip after 5 seconds, and even worse: (at least the yt client on android), that there are some videos that inject ads in the MIDDLE of the video I'm watching...the only reason why I continued to watch, is the content was decently produced and interesting

    6. Re:Youtube by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Adblock works on PC I think, as I've never seen an ad with youtube on the PC. On my TV though I don't have adblock, so I'm seeing ads. I'm told that I can add some blocking on my firewall but I haven't gotten around to researching that since it hasn't been annoying until recently.

    7. Re:Youtube by doconnor · · Score: 1

      We watched some ads for the Descendants TV series on the Family Channel (Canadian Disney Channel) we had to watch 3 unskippable 30 seconds ad just see the minute long ad.

    8. Re:Youtube by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      I can't figure out why the advertisers themselves don't have a problem with this. They paid a premium to place their ad on the front page and they are getting shafted by YouTube as you have to watch another companies ad beforehand.

      You think I'm going to watch an ad just so I can watch another ad? No your crazy but Chevrolet should be pissed that I had to watch a ad for orkin before I could see the ad they paid for on the YouTube homepage.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  10. Re:Page loading has always been far slower with ad by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    My response to sites that ask me to disable ad-block is to point them to ad-block approved ads. I don't mind those.

    I think the advertisers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The metrics show that their ads have lousy response rates, so they make them more obtrusive, which increases their click-through rates, yes. But then those buying the advertising eventually look at 'completion rates', and find that the obtrusive ads have lower completion rates - IE somebody actually buying the product/service, signing up, whatever. Most of the increase is from a higher mis-click rate where the user is hitting close or back as quickly as they can.

    Thing is, earlier advertising was much more nebulous about it's benefit. It's hard to tell how much soda any given soda commercial sells, whether it's worth it, etc... What metrics they do have shows that as the number of ads increase, the response rates fall - viewers become immune. And we're very immune at this point.

    Hell, at this point aliens might find that we're 'utterly' immune to their propaganda due to the barrage we face every day.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  11. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they need a "100 ms limit"? Why slow down things?

    I understand that they want to serve us ads for money. Simple greed. But they also want to be *fast*, or people will go away and watch other sites instead. Why have a "decision-making" process at page load time at all? Why not simply serve me the next ad in line extremely *quickly*?

    Advertisers are always kind of obnoxious - but why do they have to be excessively stupid too? Not that it matters much to me, with adblock+ghostery+noscript, but still. Why piss off the ad-viewing public with slowness on top of everything?

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're not auctioning the page, they're auctioning YOU, and they can only do that once they know what you're going to look at.

    2. Re:Huh? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I see things sort of analoguous to shaving microseconds off of financial transactions. There's someone in the middle making money without being either producer or consumer and providing no real world value of any sort. Sort of like leeches but not as cuddly.

  12. I don't get it by mysidia · · Score: 2

    Why don't publishers put the ads in a section of the page that can allow the rest of the page to load and render before the ad loads and renders?

    E.g. Embed the ad in a sized Iframe.

    1. Re:I don't get it by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Why don't publishers put the ads in a section of the page that can allow the rest of the page to load and render before the ad loads and renders?

      Because you could stop the loading once the content you wanted was rendered, thus skipping the ad.

      So the pages are set up so the ad loads and renders first.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:I don't get it by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The web site owners don't know about any of this, they have farmed out their design to third parties and after signing a contract to an ad provider/server they wash their hands of responsibility (as long as they get revenue). The third parties don't want this idea because then it would be too easy to block them, as in loss of revenue.

  13. A simple proposition. by Reeses · · Score: 1

    Ok. Everyone hates ads.

    What is the alternate solution? Are you willing to pay for a subscription to every site you visit? Do you want more "native content" intermixed with all these articles?

    Let's face it, hosting sites and entertainment on the Internet isn't free. Soulskill has to eat and put a roof over his head. Along with the rest of the Slashdot staff. And those colo costs are non-zero.

    Which do you want? Your "free" ad-based internet? Or the worse solutions that are coming if sites continue to not be able to cover their costs + profit using banner ads?

    Seriously. Think about it. Then reply.

    Start with this math. Take your personal salary. Divide it by $.001 (the cost to display a typical banner ad). Figure out how many banner ad views you need to cover your salary + benefits (they're not free either) at a moderately popular website. It's a frightening number. Even if you're just a lowly intern making minimum wage.

    Then, think about other ways a site can generate that kind of revenue.

    Which is the greater evil?

    --
    Reeses
    1. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a site sells no product, sells no service, or gives something away for "free" that is so bad they get no donations, then they deserve to die.

      The only thing more annoying than these corpses sticking around are the people like you who attempt to argue that advertising is the second coming.

    2. Re:A simple proposition. by turkeydance · · Score: 1

      ok. other ways to generate revenue: 1. dev an ad-block app/program that's good enough to pay for. 2. that's it, really.

    3. Re:A simple proposition. by Nanoda · · Score: 1

      Start with _this_ math - take your average page views per day, multiply it by $.001 to find how much websites are making per day by making your web browsing experience miserable. It's a piddly number _even_ for a lowly intern making minimum wage.

      Then absolutely yes think about other ways a site can generate that kind of revenue, 'cause they need to use them. Patreon comes to mind for a start.

    4. Re:A simple proposition. by imidan · · Score: 1

      I don't hate ads. I don't pay much attention to them, I don't find them to be useful or helpful in any way, and I don't click on them except by accident. But I totally understand the reason they're on the page. I get it. People hosting web sites need some income to pay the fees associated with that.

      When your ads take so long to load that I navigate away from the page before it even loads, you lose ad impression money. When your ads are so intrusive that I stop going to your site, you lose ad impression money. When you make my experience shitty, you lose ad impression money.

      There is an equilibrium here. If you can serve me ads in a way that doesn't make me stop viewing your page, then you get ad impression money and I get to consume your content: we both win.

    5. Re:A simple proposition. by Reeses · · Score: 1

      Slashdot sels no product. Sells no service. And wouldn't get enough donations to cover its costs. So they deserve to die?

      I'm not arguing that advertising in the second coming. I despise most of it as much as everyone else. But, it is an accepted social structure that allows for the social contract between a content provider and the general public to stay intact. Because people generally don't want to pay for anything. And running these things isn't free.

      Again, offer up another solution.

      --
      Reeses
    6. Re:A simple proposition. by Reeses · · Score: 1

      Ok. That's a good solution for exactly one website.

      Say, reddit develops an ad-blocking solution that you have to pay for.

      How does that help slashdot stay in business?

      --
      Reeses
    7. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about this:

      Advertisers go back to a few small unobtrusive static ads on each page. People didn't hate ads nearly as much before the ads got so obnoxious and headache inducing, Static ads load more quickly too. One reason that more and more people started using ad-blockers is that the ads got too obnoxious, headache-inducing, and too distracting from the page content that they want to see.

      Unfortunately, there is now a core of folks like me who will not ever go back to not using ad-blockers. The ads have gotten to the point where they are self-defeating. The more obnoxious and intrusive the ads get, the more people use ad-blockers.

    8. Re:A simple proposition. by Reeses · · Score: 1

      Sure. Patreon is an option.

      Maybe slashdot could generate enough money in the first year running a patreon campaign to cover its costs.

      But what about year two?

      Everyone already hates it when wikipedia runs their yearly donation campaign. And they have an order of magnitude more traffic than slashdot.

      Then what are you going to do, limit slashdot content to those who have donated through patreon? What's the difference between that and a paywall?

      --
      Reeses
    9. Re:A simple proposition. by Reeses · · Score: 1

      True. And then it starts to become a compounding problem.

      Your favorite sites start to run ads to cover their escalating costs.

      The users semi-revolt, so they run adblocker.

      As the site see their revenue go down, they either a) run more ads to make up for it, or b) go out of business.

      For most sites (unless you really love those listicle content mills), that's the tragedy. For others, well most of them have chosen A.

      --
      Reeses
    10. Re:A simple proposition. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can put ads on a site without being a jerk about it. Make them small, non-animated, silent, and keep them out of the way of the content. Only a small minority of people tend to object to advertisements like that. It's when you start actively shoving them in people's faces, animating them, making them play video or sound, interspersing them misleadingly throughout the content, creating pop ups or pop-unders, and all that other sort of nonsense... that's when people get irritated enough to install ad-blockers.

      This isn't a binary choice. Advertisement works just fine as long as it's kept to a reasonable level of non-annoyance. But time after time after time, we see that they just can't resist pushing things a bit too far and in turn pushing people to the point of taking action

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    11. Re: A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could charge you 2 cents to post a comment.

    12. Re:A simple proposition. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Ok. Everyone hates ads.

      I dont hate ads, I hate being annoyed by ads. The only ads I see are the ones that are passive enough to get past adblock. This I dont really mind as they're almost always not interfering with the content.

      When ads become more important than displaying the content people went there for is when people start to turn off, or in the case of the internet they start to use an adblocker. This is in response to advertising becoming more and more painful for the end user.

      What is the alternate solution?

      Few are suggesting that advertisement needs to be eliminated. This is entirely the product of your black and white thinking, that we must accept bad advertising or the entire system will fall apart. It wont.

      What we are saying is that the advertising business model needs to change to be more accommodating to the end user, not hostile to it. As long as advertisers think that becoming more and more annoying is a good way to get eyeballs, more and more people will continue to use adblockers. Eventually they'll be forced to change, even if it results in most advertisers dying out and being replaced by companies with an adapted business model. Think about it, then reply.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:A simple proposition. by JanneM · · Score: 1

      What is the alternate solution? Are you willing to pay for a subscription to every site you visit? Do you want more "native content" intermixed with all these articles?

      Or, you know, less content. It's not as if we're all sitting around wishing there was more stuff on the internet to read, right?

      We pay a monthly subscription for our online daily newspaper. I occasionally pay for things such as printed anthologies of online comics I follow, buy books by authors whose blogs and articles I read. I subscribe to a couple of websites.

      At one end there is high-quality content such as newspapers (which is high quality in my home country) and other stuff like I listed above. Stuff that is good enough that people really do want to pay for it.

      At the other end a lot of people out there are creating good stuff completely for free. You've got academics, programmers and other professionals with a day job that write to spread what they learn. You've got hobbyists sharing their passion. Small businesses publishing good stuff to promote their name and skills. Factual events are widely and freely reported.

      The content farms, clickbait sites and the rest out there is squeezed between these two. The high-quality stuff sets the bar for what people expect in order to part with their money. The free stuff sets the bar on what people accept before they abandon you and leave for better sources.

      If your business depends on having so much advertising that it drives people to block stuff or leave, then you have no business being in business at all.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    14. Re:A simple proposition. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "But, it is an accepted social structure"

      Accepted by whom?

      I'm not even going to attempt to guess what percentage of us refuse to accept it. But, there are those of us who simply DO NOT accept that we must watch meaningless advertisements before we can get to the page contents.

      If the advertisers COULD successfully target my interests, I might actually look at an ad now and then - before I did a search for that product, to compare it to other similar products. Then, when I've compared them, I often go to Ebay to see if the item is available at some huge markdown. I'm in the market for a megger, for instance. I don't SEE advertisements for meggers, despite the fact that I've already done a number of searches. Let's SUPPOSE that an advertiser were shrewd enough to catch on to my megger searches. He starts serving up megger advertisements, starting with Fluke. The prices in the ads start at over $1000, because the vendors who pay for advertising need to recoup their advertising costs. More reasonable prices are available directly from Fluke and Fluke approved vendors around $500 to $600. But, suppose that I don't NEED new and/or calibrated equipment - I just need a semi-reliable meter. I can go to those vendors who aren't advertising, and sell the same equipment at less than $500. If I'm willing to settle for a used piece of equipment, I can find my fluke megger multi-meter for AS LITTLE AS $200.

      Keep in mind that I've researched and purchased a number of meters over the past few years. Not one time have I ever seen an advertisement for electric/electronic testing equipment anywhere other than Ebay, and a very select number of industrial sales sites.

      In short - the advertisers are utter failures. Despite all their attempts at "targeted advertising", they have completely FAILED to identify my interests and needs. Utter failures.

      Now - why should I tolerate their in-your-face advertising bullshit, when they so completely fail to offer things that I actually need?

      Notice that I'm not even really bitching here that the items advertised are to high. That's just a peripheral consideration to the fact that they've not merely missed the target. The damned fools aren't even hitting the range! They are standing at the east end of the range, the targets are on the west end, but their bullets are flying out north, east, south, and west.

      We should reward such gross incompetence? Why?

      And, no, meg testers are not the only items I've needed, and searched for. Try it yourself - do a search for industrial grade fuse pullers. There are a small number of different brands on the market, with Ideal being the standard. Do several searches over a few days, and sit back to see how many advertisements you get. I have Ideal fuse pullers in three different sizes in my toolboxes. A couple years ago, I purchased a lot-sale off of Ebay, and got 18 of the smallest for a couple dollars each. I gave them to my work-mates for Christmas. Despite the fact that I have an established history of searching for, and purchasing these things, I've NEVER SEEN AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR THEM!

      Sample ebay sale, currently priced around ten bucks: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ideal-...

      --
      "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
    15. Re:A simple proposition. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Get better content, do better at troll control and get more of us to subscribe.

      Why are you a cheap jerk and not paying a subscription? http://slashdot.org/subscribe....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    16. Re: A simple proposition. by Reeses · · Score: 1

      Would you pay?

      Would you enter your credit card # (defaulting to the most common payment method in the US) for a $.02 transaction?

      Would you hold money in a third party account that handles all those $.02 transactions?

      Or, more likely, would you just resign yourself to enjoying a slashdot with an empty comments section? I can tell you one thing, with a nearly non-existent comment section, slashdot's operating costs would plummet. Thereby solving most of your advertising problem. :)

      --
      Reeses
    17. Re:A simple proposition. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      One thing about advertising - all of my efforts to block advertising still allow some ads to come through. I do see an occassional advertisement.

      Every single advertisement that I DO SEE is hosted on the server which is serving up the content that I am looking at. If you are hosting your own blog, on your own hardware, and you serve up an advertisement with each page, I WILL SEE that advertisement. I may or may not LOOK AT the ad, but it will load, and I will see it, at least peripherally.

      --
      "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
    18. Re:A simple proposition. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Headache inducing? Let's not forget people who are subject to epileptic seizures. I remember some of those pages that stabbed into my brain painfully. If I were an epileptic, I'm sure that some of them would have triggered a seizure. Think of MySpace as a prime example of the crap I'm talking about.

      --
      "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
    19. Re:A simple proposition. by RY · · Score: 1

      How about having a marketable product and buisness plan. The web site can then be a media rather than the product.

    20. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. Everyone hates ads.

      What is the alternate solution?

      This comes up every so often, I believe the last time was in May when Adblock won a lawsuit where they were being sued by some German advertisers whining about them ruining their business model. As I recall, most people have no problem with proper low bandwidth ads (i.e. text only). What people object to are the 99% of current intrusive ads; pop ups, pop unders' flash streaming two meg videos that autoplay and helpfully turn off your mute for you while jacking the volume up full; ads that require you click on something to make them stop blocking the content you went to the site to see; ads for illegal stuff and questionable investment opportunities. But the biggest objection that I recall most people complaining about is the fact that ads are a major vector for malware.

      Start with this math. Take your personal salary.

      Boo hoo hoo. I'll turn my ad blockers off when; the intrusive ads stop; when ad company executives orders their programmers to bypass system settings in order to display their ads they go to prison for hacking under the computer fraud and abuse act; when they display ads for things that are illegal they are subject to whatever the penalty is for selling that illegal item; when they serve up malware they are not only subject to criminal prosecution, but are fined for, say $25,000 (FOR EACH OCCURRENCE) with $2,000 or that going to the victim.

      So until advertisers take responsibility for the crap that they spew out into the internet, my anti-malware shields stay up.

    21. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot sels no product. Sells no service. And wouldn't get enough donations to cover its costs. So they deserve to die?

      Yes.

    22. Re:A simple proposition. by Reeses · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Accepted by people everywhere. (Except BBC viewers, but I'll get to that.)

      Technically advertising has been around since Survival of the Fittest became the order of the day. So, about the second day after the first amoeba crawled out of the oceanic ooze. But, more relevant to the issue at hand, it's been accepted ever since the inception of mass media. You can draw your line in history where ever you want. Go back as far as ancient Rome. Advertising has been there. "Come see men almost get eaten by lions! Enjoy food while you're there!"

      But you probably want a more modern example. Then ever since the dawn of radio. Pumping 1000 W into the air wasn't cheap (the power of the first FM radio station.) Neither is pumping 100,000 W (modern FM station broadcast levels). Again, not to mention staffing and building maintenance, etc. But, in order to get wide adoption, they had to get people to listen. Many people felt that they shouldn't have to continue to pay after shelling out $100 (NOT inflation adjusted) for a radio. So they experimented with various revenue models, because even then, content wasn't free. So, the broadcasters entered into implied contract with the public. You get the content for "free", all you have to do is give up a little bit of attention in exchange.

      And it worked fairly well for a period of time. TV came around, and all was good. Newspapers. Whatever other media used a similar model.

      The BBC used a slightly different model where people had to pay a monthly license fee for every TV they owned. That license fee went straight to the BBC which paid for the content they saw. There were steep fees if you got caught watching TV without having paid your license fee. (Americans see it as a tax, which it essentially was.) And it worked for a while, until the advent of cable and satellite TV. Then the model came crumbling down.

      And I don't know if you remember the early days of the internet (I do, check my slashdot ID#). Many other revenue models were tried. Ultimately, people, as always, are reluctant to pay for content. So, the advertising showed up, and we get to enjoy our content for "free". You just have to exchange some attention. And most people are happy with it.

      Side note: Most people's discontent with online advertising is because Flash... blows. Well, that's changing. Within the next year, HTML5 ads are going to become the de facto standard, which will probably break AdBlock, at least for a little while. But, it ought to reduce the resource load. And for a brief shining moment, ads will become less annoying. Until they're not anymore.

      As for your targeted marketing, there's a few issues at stake. Many people are creeped right the fuck out when ads get too targeted at them. Target already knows when women are pregnant, even before they do. It scares people enough to receive the mailer. Imagine having a "pregnant" cookie in your browser. It would become inescapable. (I don't want to get into a long discussion about cookies and privacy and what not. Regardless of how it's set, the advertisers would know.) So there's a careful balance that the advertisers deliberately strike between providing relevant ads and being too creepy. Again, be careful what you wish for.

      As for your Fluke and circuit puller problems. Running ads targeted like that is expensive. Most of your Fluke vendors aren't exactly rolling in the dough. And they're trying to sell you on a product you're going to buy once a decade. It's not financially feasible for them to do highly targeted marketing. So, instead, you'll be stuck with Amazon's terrible retargeted ads (that are carefully designed to not freak you out too much.) since Amazon knows you'll probably buy something else to cover the costs of running the ads (plus, they get a mass discount due to the sheer volume of ads they run and they have an automated system to generate them that your Fluke vendor can't afford.)

      You're not rewarding gross incompetence so much as you are dealing with uncanny valley of what consumers are comfor

      --
      Reeses
    23. Re:A simple proposition. by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You left out the third option that will become a standard and that's to stall you out if you are using any kind of ad blocker.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    24. Re:A simple proposition. by Reeses · · Score: 1

      Then why are you here? :)

      --
      Reeses
    25. Re:A simple proposition. by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Slashdot sels no product. Sells no service. And wouldn't get enough donations to cover its costs. So they deserve to die?

      They used to sell a service where you could subscribe to Slashdot for some nominal fee per 1,000 page loads. The fact that they quit selling this service is their own problem, the scaffolding is all there. It just needs to be turned back on and made worth the investment.

      Because people generally don't want to pay for anything. And running these things isn't free.

      Our next stewards should revisit the freemium/subscription model. I used to pay $5 a month for TotalFark, now I spend around $3 a month for reddit gold, lots of people pay $10+ for Something Awful, but I never saw any compelling reason to buy a subscription here. I can suppress ads without subscribing, and the other features weren't appealing enough to make it worth a few bucks. Get rid of the page count model and switch to a couple dollars per month. Then ask the community what features would justify those dollars. Comment editing, a richer set of supported HTML tags in comments, the ability to revert to the layout from 10 years ago, etc.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    26. Re: A simple proposition. by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      The solution is not to rely on advertising as your primary means of financing your business. Unless you're Google, advertising is an EXPENSE designed to promote something else you wish to sell. Yanno, kind of like R&D. It's a necessary evil to get your product from concept to purchased commodity.

      Trying to profit / survive on advertising alone means you seriously suck at anything other than advertising and don't deserve to be in business to begin with.

      If we use Cable TV as an example, even when we paid a subscription, they still innundate us with ads because they're greedy bastards so I have zero sympathy for overkill advertising.

    27. Re:A simple proposition. by Reeses · · Score: 1

      Ask that same question of the million other people who come here.

      --
      Reeses
    28. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The core of the problem isn't ads, or people not wanting to see them.

      The real problem is that every other site these days seems to be riding the wave of "user-generated content", which is a fine way of saying "leeching off someone else's work". Because they don't actually produce anything worthwhile, nobody in their right mind would pay for that service.

      So they're boned. If they try to charge for the service, people will just ignore them. And they can't try to sell subscriptions, merchandise or "premium" access, because people got used to the whole "It's FREE!" idea.

      So they're stuck showing ads. But then ads don't pay all that much, so they need to become more intrusive and obnoxious. And thus, we have ad blockers.

      I am convinced that if you build something worthwhile, people won't mind paying for it. There are plenty of sites out there that survive on subscriptions and merchandise. They aren't as large as Facebook, but the owners get to make a living doing what they enjoy.

    29. Re:A simple proposition. by Reeses · · Score: 3, Informative

      Back when slashdot tried that, people were against paying for subscriptions to websites.

      Maybe it's viable to revisit it now. Times have changed.

      It would be interesting to see what perks they can make. Especially when the readership plummets as soon as the subscription goes live.

      --
      Reeses
    30. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the advertising apologists are here.

    31. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a stupid idea. Consumers will always want low-quality content for free. Even charging 1 cent will reduce sales dramatically. Therefore, ads are the best way to make money in this market segment.

      And yet after more than a quarter century of web ads, there are still no regulations against obnoxious ads: ads that animate continuously while you're trying to read an article, ads that are so resource heavy it slows down the browser. Even text ads are annoying if they are embedded inside content. Forcing/tricking people, who are not interested in the advertised product, into viewing ads is sadly still not considered a crime.

    32. Re:A simple proposition. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Ads that people hate do not generate revenue. The whole model is fundamentally broken.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    33. Re:A simple proposition. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      They used to sell a service where you could subscribe to Slashdot [slashdot.org] for some nominal fee per 1,000 page loads. The fact that they quit selling this service is their own problem, the scaffolding is all there. It just needs to be turned back on and made worth the investment.

      I subscribed to Slashdot right up until their subscription system broke.

      My second official act as the new owner of Slashdot (after tearing out the videos and replacing them with fish tanks) will be making sure that goddamn subscription system works again. It was easy as pie and occasionally I would even pick some insightful commenter and gift him 5000 page loads.

      When Slashdot started refusing my subscription requests, I figured it was only a matter of time until they'd get sold. Fortunately, I had sufficient bottle caps, pre-war money and Legion Denarius to purchase the site. Once the sale goes through, things are gonna be different around here, lemme tell you.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:A simple proposition. by houghi · · Score: 1

      In the lights of the ongoing sale of /. : I was not willing to pay when the site was great. I am not willing to pay now the site is average.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    35. Re:A simple proposition. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Just keep the archives intact. I ask nothing more...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    36. Re:A simple proposition. by cusco · · Score: 1

      I try not to think of MySpace at all . . .

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    37. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a binary choice. Advertisement works just fine as long as it's kept to a reasonable level of non-annoyance. But time after time after time, we see that they just can't resist pushing things a bit too far and in turn pushing people to the point of taking action.

      Ad's are competing with other ad's. It's a tragedy of the commons. Unobtrusive advertising is a pointless waste of time and money for the advertiser and obtrusive advertising is a pointless waste of time and money for the consumer. There is no middle ground.

    38. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. Everyone hates ads.

      What is the alternate solution?

      Verified content.
      The pages are trying to make me watch ads from a third party content because there advertisers doesn't trust the page with reporting the right number of views.
      Somehow they still expect me to trust the the page enough to accept third party content from it.
      If they want me to watch ads, serve it from the page I agreed to visit. Take responsibility when the ad contains malware or tries to take over my browser and play videos or messing with the volume.

    39. Re:A simple proposition. by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Supporting anecdotes:
      There are a number of sites I have whitelisted for quite a while now (webcomics, mostly). Only very recently did I notice a slightly more annoying one on one of those sites. Usually, I am completely fine with all their ads. And that is just because they are web-ads like they used to be, long long ago. Present, but not fucking annoying and in your face.

      There is one website which I value that detects adblockers and approximately weekly flashes a message about how I'm hurting them by using an adblocker (although they are nice enough to just let me dismiss the message). Once in a while I whitelist them and very rapidly blacklist them again, because their ads are just so fucking terrible. Sorry guys, I'm not hurting your business. You are.

    40. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even small, unobtrusive ads might still track you or try to exploit the next zero day exploit in your browser. And some people have philosophical objections to the entire concept of advertising in general.

    41. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone already hates it when wikipedia runs their yearly donation campaign.

      Yep, but that isn't the only reason a lot of people hate wikipedia.
      If they had bit a bit more careful about people hogging pages and not allowing improvements or corrections on them then perhaps there would be more people willing to donate.
      Instead they have ended up with a loyal userbase of the people that has time to guard an article, that is angsty teenagers without jobs.

    42. Re:A simple proposition. by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      Radio advertising started as a patronage model. Phillip Morris or Dove would pay for the production or syndication of a radio show, and the show/broadcaster would express their gratitude. Not unlike PBS today. From a listener perspective, this is great - you get content and you have relatively unobtrusive product mentions. From a sponsor perspective, it's great - your brand gets associated with popular bits of culture, you get the opportunity to mention new products, and people begin to associate your brand with class and good works. Everyone knew The Shadow smoked Lucky Strikes (or whatever). Sponsors had an interest in evaluating the quality of programming, because who wants to be associated with a crappy show?

      Internet advertising is the exact opposite of this. There's zero connection between the advertiser and the content producer, because ad placement is determined by a third party. Ads appear on Joe's Scat Collection just as much (or more) as CNN.

      I'd be happy to see the current advertising model die. I think a lot of companies would do well to establish "Arts" sponsorship programs to reward people putting actual, quality content on the web. These people complaining that content will disappear from the web if advertising is blocked/ignored/banned are missing the point that 95% of web 'content' is completely without value. If you want to keep an online diary on facebook, you are not entitled to make an income from it, and no one is obligated to pay you to look at a picture of yesterday's dinner.

    43. Re:A simple proposition. by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      You left out the third option that will become a standard and that's to stall you out if you are using any kind of ad blocker.

      Any web site that does this suffers a fatally inflated sense of worth. There is almost no content on the web that can't be found in alternative form somewhere else. NYT blocking non-subscribers? The Guardian is running a story about the same thing. Used up all your "free" views on ESPN? MLB.com has scores and commentary. Seriously, I can count on one hand the ad-supported web sites that I would suffer should they drop off the planet tomorrow.

      A surprising number of sites I read are written by enthusiasts who pay BlueHost (or someone) $5/month for hosting, and don't run any ads. Honestly, that's what I thought the web was supposed to be: a platform where anyone could publish content based on their passion for collecting pocket lint that looks like famous people, and connect with similar maniacs around the world. You pay a little to host your own stuff and contribute to the community, and you get to read other people's ramblings for free. I'm not surprised that it's turned into a way to get paid $0.25 for posting pictures of your cat sitting in a sink, but neither can you convince me that removing advertising would make those people stop posting cat pictures.

      If you believe your content is so valuable that I'll turn off my ad blocker just to read it, you're wrong.

    44. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! I ran without adblockers for a long time. Then my browser started crashing from poorly written ads using flash. It became annoying to deal with the pop-ups. I went into a rage whenever an ad would be hidden somewhere on the page, and start talking to me. Finally , enough was enough, and now adblock it is. I didn't run an adblocker until maybe a year or so ago, but they effectively drove me to use them because they were completely ruining my internet experience.

    45. Re:A simple proposition. by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      If a site sells no product, sells no service, or gives something away for "free" that is so bad they get no donations, then they deserve to die.

      If such sites really offer nothing of value, people won't come back and the site will die anyways. If people stay on the site, then it has value so why should it die ?
      As for donations, appeal to donations *is* advertising. Just look at Wikipedia's last campaign : it even had flashy banners and popup overlays. So much that I wrote a custom filter in adblock to remove them.

    46. Re:A simple proposition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [BBC] license fee. (Americans see it as a tax, which it essentially was.)

      It's most certainly not a tax. Revenue from taxes would go directly in to the general pool of whatever entity levies them. The BBC license fees go directly to the BBC, without any politicians, agencies or anything else in between that would possibly decide about the fraction or the use of the license revenue.

    47. Re:A simple proposition. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You will rue the day you touch my Pokedots pregnancy complications page! I *will* track you down and kill you for I am never wrong when it comes to Pokedot pregnancy. I authored the articles linked so I have citations for all of my work. I *am* the expert and you are *not* and have no business touching my Pokedot pregnancy complications page.

      I fixed the spelling of Leadbelly on a page, all of them. Somebody came along (with amazing quickness too, I am not sure how they managed to be so hawkish) and reverted the changes. I did not bother to argue... I figured I would just let them have it. I did not lose any respect for the site because that was impossible.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    48. Re:A simple proposition. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think that part of the problem is that we assume people hate what we hate. I abhor ads and do not actually see any. Honestly, I can not recall the last time I saw an ad except for when I opened up Internet Explorer on a Windows system a few weeks ago. Prior to that? I do not even recall the last time.

      Advertising works - or they would not do it. Things are not going to change. We do not get to decide the business model used by advertisers or by site owners. What we do get to decide is what we consume. If enough people think like us, and they obviously do not, then things will change as a whole. Until that happens we have to control our consumption. We have no right to say what a company should or should not do in this matter. They will do what they lawfully can to make profits. Right now the advertisement business is profitable. We will have ads.

      Well, no. Someone will have ads. I will not have ads. I am currently building a site. It too will have ads. I can easily afford to run it as a loss just because but no, I want it to actually make money. I have plans for that money (not for me, I have plenty of money) so my goal is to make it profitable. (In this case it is to have the community decide where the profits go as well as openly sharing the finances. The community will get to decide which group gets the donated profits.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    49. Re:A simple proposition. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia sells no product, sells no service and DOES get enough donations to cover its costs, which are far more than Slashdot's costs. I personally believe that Jimmy Wales needs to die in a fire, but Wikipedia can hang around.

      Also, Slashdot could sell products such as shirts and mugs. In fact I believe they actually have some products, they seem to be under the /.Deals button. I have never been to that site, but I have ABP turned off on Slashdot and don't check the "don't advertise me bro" button.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    50. Re:A simple proposition. by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I disagree.

      Those who have studied history are bound to predict it. ~ © 2015 CaptainDork

      Look at TV. It has two basic business models:

      1.) "Free." as in advertiser supported
      2.) "Paywalled," as in pay per view
      3.) Hybrid of subscription with advertisements. (most common here in US; subscribe to cable or other and suffer through ads))

      That same structure will work on the Internet.

      You are correct in that places that refuse to show me content with the admonition to turn off Ad Blocker lose my eyeballs and I do go somewhere else.

      Still, that's the content provider's choice and if enough sites take that approach, we'll be disabling Ad Block.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    51. Re:A simple proposition. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Start with this math. Figure it costs an average person $100 to remove a malware infection, count how many ads do nothing to screen for malware, and compute the risk. Is it higher than the value of the ads? Should advertisers be paying viewers?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    52. Re:A simple proposition. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Million, you must think this is 2001 in the Slashdot heydays...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    53. Re:A simple proposition. by allo · · Score: 1

      simple.
      Block all ads.
      Let it sort out themself.

      If somebody has no good business models (which means, the user think it's worth it), he will vanish.
      If somebody can motivate the user to whitelist the ads, it may stay.
      If somebody can make money otherwise, it's the best.
      Some may try to ask for donations, which works better than you would think.
      Or somebody could just host his stuff on own cost. Because it's fun.

      There is no need to discuss "when you block ads, the free web will be gone". Start doing so (many did) and wait, the market will tell us. Both parts (websites, users) are able to move as needed, there is no predefined desirable goal for all, but stuff you think it's worth to do something (help, pay, look at ads) and stuff where you do not think so.

      By the way: Whitelisting is bullshit. Only clicks bring money and seriously, will you click on ads, if you whitelisted them? If you do, you should not have had an adblocker, if you just whitelist because you're asked to, you are probably too smart for it.

  14. Load in background tab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is thwarted by loading in a background tab, or even loading and doing something else - such as using that little room where we express our opinion of most advertising.

    1. Re: Load in background tab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like *someone's* out of their little room. A little padded room.

  15. async loading of ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most ads load async from the rest of the page. Otherwise Publishers would be screaming. Sounds like BI needs better advertising partners.

    1. Re:async loading of ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adblock. That is all.

  16. Is there any evidence that web ads work? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I mean the ones served "in passing". It just seems so counter-intuitive that someone would open a page to read an article or see pics and then ignore that thing and go read or watch the ad and click on it and remember any of it, let alone actually buy something.

    I don't have AdBlock in one of the four browsers I run (Sandboxied Chrome -- the others are Sandboxied FF with no flash, non-Sandboxied FF with Noscript, and non-Sandboxied Chrome that I only use for 3-4 sites), and don't remember seeing anything remotely relevant or interesting, except for a couple of youtube ads, or ads for goods I already found and bought on Amazon. And I have clicked on an ad and bought something a number of times when I was searching for the item on Google, in the mindset of wanting to buy. Though I often end up going to Amazon and buying the item there.

    Facebook in that sense seems the worst, no one is in a mindset to buy, they are just looking to score a bit of interesting info or pic from "friends". Imagine watching porn and seeing an ad on the side for 15% off for iphone cases. Well you most likely wouldn't even see the ad.

    Anyway that's one datapoint. The 1st google search on "do web ads work" gives this ("A Dangerous Question: Does Internet Advertising Work at All?") http://www.theatlantic.com/bus.... Prob. another case where Betteridge's law holds.

    1. Re:Is there any evidence that web ads work? by TwentyCharsIsNotEnou · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? Look at Google's advertising revenue - that's clear evidence that it works both for the advertising company and their customers.

    2. Re:Is there any evidence that web ads work? by bsolar · · Score: 1

      It's only evidence that they think it works, not that it's actually as effective as they think.

    3. Re:Is there any evidence that web ads work? by TwentyCharsIsNotEnou · · Score: 1

      So you think billions of dollars are being blindly spent annually on advertising by companies who haven't noticed that it's not actually making them a profit?

      With analytics they can tell exactly how many sales they made through which clicks to which ads. I don't know what kind of evidence you're looking for, but I can't imagine it getting much better than that.

    4. Re:Is there any evidence that web ads work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, that's advertising in the search results , when a potential consumer is actually looking to buy somethng. Passive ads ? I know I've never even clicked one let alone bought something.

    5. Re:Is there any evidence that web ads work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The classic line says, "50% of advertising works, but we don't know which 50%" - and targeting is an attempt to improve that metric, as is just about every other silly thing advertisers do.

      When targeting is done wrong, the jarring is very obvious: A recent drama over on furry site FurAffinity (which hosts both sfw and nsfw material) came about because the operators had started allowing porn ads on any page with an nsfw element -- so on almost every thumbnail gallery page. And these ads were for *human porn*. Hot chicks in your IP geo-zone, but not the feathery beaky kind. Cougars, but not the sort with fur. Hilarity (and ad blockers) ensued among the user community.

    6. Re:Is there any evidence that web ads work? by billrp · · Score: 1

      Ad companies will often run ads only in selected geographic regions or selected subgroups of consumers, and then collect data on any increases in sales in those targeted groups. If there's a sales increase then the ad agency will claim causation and proof that ads work.

    7. Re:Is there any evidence that web ads work? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Wrong mindset. Click-throughs or direct conversions to sale are very bad measures. Nice if it happens, but it shouldn't be the purpose of an ad. How often do you think newspaper ads get clicked on? I think they more often get a coffee mug put on top of them. Yet considering so many ads are bought in news papers, they do seem to be worth the cost.

      Same for web ads. It's the impressions that count. It's that people get to see your logo, get to see your product, so that later when they're in the shop they go for the brand that they've seen many ads of, the brand that they know, over some no-name brand. That no-one clicks on them is totally irrelevant.

      The only exception is Google's ads - I'm seeing those ads as glorified commercial search results. If I want to buy a product, the ads are what I'm looking at, as that's often companies that are indeed selling the product I'm looking for. If I want general information about that product, I ignore the ads but go for the organic results instead, which tend to be more review sites and the like, which do not sell the product I'm looking for.

    8. Re:Is there any evidence that web ads work? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I once spent $100 to purchase targeted ads from Google. I used a special URL that was made with a handy tracking script so that I could also monitor what was done. These were on-click ads and not ads based on impressions. Three days went by and my ads were never shown. I raised my bid price. Less than an hour later the ads were gone. The site showed not one lick of increased traffic. The URL (working - I had tested it) had not been clicked on one single time.

      Rather than waste time gathering evidence and presenting the problem to Google I simply just considered it a failed experiment and never tried them again. This was in 2006 to 2008 (I can only narrow it down, I can not be exact - it was more likely to have been in the latter half of 2006) and things may have changed since then.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  17. Slashdot is guilty too by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Ever since I blocked 'player.ooyala.com', load times are much faster..

    Everybody's got an angle. The supermarket strategically places carts and boxes in aisles to block a straight path to the checkout counter. They try to make you walk through the whole store. The world doesn't change.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Slashdot is guilty too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I block the entire ooyala.com domain.

    2. Re:Slashdot is guilty too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ever since I blocked 'player.ooyala.com', load times are much faster.."

      Seconded. Do this.

    3. Re:Slashdot is guilty too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They try to make you walk through the whole store.

      Ikea is a master at this.

    4. Re:Slashdot is guilty too by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Nah, carts and boxes are not placed intentionally - at least not typically. A store manager may do so but that is because they only understand the most basics of pedestrian traffic habits. My business modeled, and consulted on, vehicular traffic but we expanded to human traffic analytics, modeling, optimization, patterning, and consulted as well as designed throughput metrics. You may well have been in a product of our design or driven on a road that we helped optimize. (Do not blame us, they fail to listen much of the time and half-assed implementation is sometimes worse than no change at all,)

      I feel a novella coming on. You have been warned. Skip or read it, it is up to you. I think you may be surprised.

      Anyhow, clutter is never good. Specifically look at end caps and in-aisle displays. Those are actually supposed to be in rather specific places. They create bottlenecks at places with colorful items in large boxes or in places where things smell nice. They are usually expensive items or, more accurately, items with a good ROI.

      The reason things are grouped together is because it avoids confusion. Trust me - they'd love to scatter stuff randomly around the store and would doubly love so if they were the only game in town. However, base ingredients will be as far away from each other (while still intuitive - usually) as possible while still being as far away from the stuff that you will use it for. Eggs are, for instance, nowhere near the cake mixes.

      You will, almost invariably, travel to your right. To your right is, almost invariably, something that you can smell and see. We built, and staffed, a grocery store in the real world and in a laboratory environment. (The lab was able to be configured for a variety of simulations.) You *will* go right given the choice. You will smell stuff and look at large pretty things. It will make you hungry and in the mood to buy more. (Now that you know this, or thought you did before, you are not immune - you will do it.) Very little sells at the bakery and it operates almost at a loss - and in some instances at a loss. However, next on the list, is often a deli. The deli is lovely and there is a metric fuckton (professional vernacular) of profit there.

      Then you have stuff in your way - usually after another attempt to assail you with colors and scents known as the produce section. This slows you down for the fish, prepackaged or custom meat cuts, and a frozen goods section just ahead. Wait - no - you can't go there... You have to figure out how to go to the aisle now. Or, best case, you walk down and walk back. There you view the "end caps" which are things on sale. Great, you saved money, now you can spend more in the next aisle.

      No, you say! I decry such manipulation and I am immune! I only buy stuff on my list! Ever! Great - that is cool because you spend less time. While you spend less time you do two important things. You buy nothing on sale or no loss leaders. You use an alternative route which serves to slow people down. You are in and out quicker but have done more for us than we could have done on our own - we appreciate that and we plan accordingly. We count on your behavior. We price the markup at such that you pay more. Thank me later.

      The milk, eggs, and dairy? Yeah - we all need that stuff. So we are going to put that in the back left. We are going to make it tough to go left to get to the items. If you do then you're going to be faced with traffic and end caps directly facing you. We do put the pharmacy close, usually, because we do not want sick people in the store. Frozen and chilled goods? Yeah - let's put those in the middle. Why? People often go there last. We want you to go back and see all those end caps (things on sale that are not really on sale or are a loss leader).

      Printed an ad in the newspaper with coupons? Yup... It just so happens that those items are around other big colorful or smelly items - and often have been moved and that just happens to coincide with when the sale began. Thought you knew wher

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Slashdot is guilty too by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      I feel a novella coming on. You have been warned. Skip or read it, it is up to you. I think you may be surprised.

      ...surprised.

      Surprised? More like, enlightened.

      Sure, I knew a few of these things (not many) and always sensed there was some "organization" going on in terms of grocery store layouts. But this was a seriously interesting/fun piece!

      A novella, of course, as you must have considered, isn't a bad idea, at all.

      Curious about the rationales (etc.) behind traffic routing on roads and highways. Wait for the book? Heheh, anyway, good one!

    6. Re:Slashdot is guilty too by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No novella this time...

      With traffic circles (rotaries or roundabouts) and yield signs (as well as following the rules of the road) there is no need for a single stop sign which would save an immense amount of time and fuel. If you wanted you could get yield signs instead of a traffic circle and just use the rules for a multi-stop scenario (such as the rules of a four way stop). It requires educated drivers who obey the rules of the roads.

      Roads are often left with crappy sections that remain unimproved (and go without needed repairs) as it is far more likely to slow traffic down in congested areas than a speed limit sign. Speed bumps do the same thing but are actually bad for road maintenance equipment.

      Rather than improve two sections of road they will improve one. An example is when the road narrows from something akin to 4 lanes from 2. Even though plenty of traffic is going to keep going they just widen the exit road to as locals are likely to use it - even though it puts traffic into the urban areas.

      Signage, signs could be vastly improved by simply using a variety of colors and sticking to them. When you are pointing to a inner-city route from the highway, make it blue or green or something. When you are pointing to a new highway merger make it a different color, etc... Humans will easily adapt and we will be safer for it. This has been tried and shown to be successful. But, that paint is damned expensive and comes premixed. Strangely - every state pretty much has its own group at the DOT to make their signs. Georgia actually makes a bunch for other states but there is no giant vendor really. There probably should be. Then they could afford the expensive equipment to blend the paints - they could even make the paints. There is such a company but they mostly do federal signage. Why not the states? They often have people who have worked there for a long time and states want to retain control. Additionally, a lot of funding for roads comes from the federal budget.

      Want to make intersections safer? Install a center lane. Better? For the same amount of space (yes, really - look at it from above) install a rotary. "But, nobody can drive in a rotary!" They can, they will, it will improve safety and throughput.

      There is a few. I do not have a conspiracy theory. It is just protectionism and power usually. There is some incompetence and bureaucracy involved as well. Some is malicious. Usually you find that either in cities with a history of it (Chicago, New York City, and oddly Buffalo spring to mind). I never saw more graft than I saw in Buffalo. They have a "Skyway" which is a highway that runs above the city. It is great to get to Niagara. I swear the entire thing is routed along land that was owned by Important People® who made a lot of money during the project. Any expansion and changes are damned expensive and slow. It was a dumb idea to begin with. It was, however, constructed well. Top notch there from my slightly better than layman's view. I did not do construction or anything but I witnessed a lot.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:Slashdot is guilty too by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the insights regarding traffic on roads. But, as a driver, here in California, I have to say that any great ideas that are dependent upon "educated drivers who obey the rules of the roads" is doomed. For instance, turn "signals," here, means "as you begin the actual turn, flip on your signal."

      They "obey" the rule, they just lack a fundamental understanding of what the rule is supposedly for. It seems minor,but it contributes to lack of safety, and is murder in terms of "anticipatory" traffic flow decision-making on the part of other drivers.

      Graft, in the mass transit area of the transportation world, is a major factor in everything from where subway/metro/light rail stops will be, or even "might" be, located, to which business areas will, or not be, inconvenienced by construction.

      Thanks again...

    8. Re:Slashdot is guilty too by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It is a matter of public record so...

      The "Big Dig" in Boston paid us 4.2 million USD. That is not an exaggeration - that is exactly the sum paid - to the penny. This was, of course, prior to the official start of the project. We gave them a list of 120 items, some with specifics that numbered in the hundreds. Some of those were, to be precise, how to actually do the project without interrupting the flow of traffic.

      This is not public record so no names...

      "If we do not interrupt traffic, how will they know we are doing something?"
      "Your promise, you specifically, was to the people. You would not be interrupting traffic."
      "Yeah, they forget that. That BS won't get me re-elected. However, pointing and showing the work will."

      Everything down to where to place supports for temporary roads to NOT impact traffic... Everything. They incorporated a few items which had line-items that maybe numbered in the thousands instead of the many many things they could have done.

      "Consider this the last time we will work for this city. It is a shame, too. You are the city that got us started and we operated at a bare budget, almost a loss, to do this work for you in appreciation."

      Not quite verbatim and still not the worst. I drove back to NC the following day and had someone else take over the on-site presence. I have considered a book but, frankly, I now have aspirations for public office and I suspect I will be better served without having published such.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re:Slashdot is guilty too by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      Thanks again. I recall reading about the Big Dig, usual stuff: how amazing the "digger" was, cost overruns, etc.

      Public office... interesting. Good luck in whatever you decide to do.

  18. Re:Page loading has always been far slower with ad by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Right, and human organ traffickers are stuck between a rock and hard place too but it's not my responsibility to help them out. So if advertisers can't make money without cheating then maybe they need to find a new career, and it's not our responsibility to put up with their tricks.

    Also better if users learn to just stop going to web sites that they don't need to. If a site bombards you with ads, then rather than just turn on adblock there, just leave the site permanently and with prejudice. If it's your favorite blog site, then send an email complaining about how bad the ads are with the hope that someone gets the hint (it is not your job to provide charity to fund someone's hobby). This is analogous to people becoming fed up with cable companies and cutting the cord.

  19. Yeah? by pchasco · · Score: 1

    Is this news? I've noticed the trend for months that a page loads slowly hoping that it can sneak an ad under your thumb before your brain realizes what's goin on.

  20. player.ooyala.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    player.ooyala.com seems to be a really big offender. I don't know what, precisely, they're serving up for Slashdot, but holy shit their response time is slow. I have Slashdot whitelisted and get by with the "As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot..." blocking, but player.ooyala.com still takes 1-2 seconds per pageload to do whatever it's doing.

    No, I don't want to hear about /etc/hosts. Just pointing out that while Slashdot runs this story, one of its own third-party embedded partners is a huge problem.

    1. Re:player.ooyala.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I don't want to hear about /etc/hosts. Just pointing out that while Slashdot runs this story, one of its own third-party embedded partners is a huge problem.

      Don't worry, our resident cuck APK will tell you a thousand times how awesome the hosts file is whether you want him to or not. Just say the magic words: "ADBLOCK!" and soon enough he'll be crapflooding your inbox with his brainsick diatribes!

    2. Re:player.ooyala.com by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      No, I don't want to hear about /etc/hosts.

      Gee, sorry, I don't know any other way to block it without installing some third party shit, and yes, it makes a huge difference.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:player.ooyala.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apk's right. You can't prove all his points favoring hosts files wrong that show how and where hosts files get you more speed, security, reliability, and anonymity online and against what types of threats that infect or enslave and rob you of speed and money or weaknesses in competitors which do less and yet use more resources also operating in a slower messagepassing ridden overheads laden usermode slow method of operations layering on more instead of using what you have (hosts) that also operates from faster kernelmode too. You downmod apk's posts for no good technically justifiable reasons either because you can't prove him wrong, showing you're some adversely affected party in inferior browser addon makers of none of which do as much as hosts do and are as easily end user controlled or botnet herder probably. You lose either way because he always makes you "run forrest run" and he knows you can't prove him wrong. I'd repost too unendingly if I knew how to like apk does if you did that to me with unending unjustifiable downmods. It further makes you look like a fool and it's hilarious that he keeps running you around looking to downmod him again knowing he's going to run you out of modpoints you probably sockpuppet multiple fake account karma farmed with even. You lose man. On every level possible.

    4. Re:player.ooyala.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason for apk's posts being downmodded is because they are spamming the board. If (she) just posted it once then it would be OK, but to post as a response to (almost) every post which mentions a competitor is grossly OTT.

    5. Re:player.ooyala.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apk explains how you bring on his reposts and why and I agree with him http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    6. Re:player.ooyala.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I don't want to hear about /etc/hosts.

      An adblock shill wants noone to see hosts are better http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

  21. Re:Page loading has always been far slower with ad by andymadigan · · Score: 1

    When you say the ads have "lousy" response rates, you're making a comparison. The only number they can compare to is either a fantasy (what they think the click-through rate should be so that they'll strike it rich) or existing obtrusive ads. Neither of these work with reality, where most people will rarely click on an ad intentionally, and even fewer will actually spend any money.

    Advertisers will do whatever they can to increase their revenue, that's why we've had pop-ups, drive by installs, ads that spread malware, auto-playing video ads, etc. The only thing way to control it is for browsers to put heavy limits in place (like built-in pop-up blockers, or Chrome disabling secondary flash elements). Pretty soon things like uBlock will just start getting built in to the browser. When the advertisers bitch, we'll just point them to behavior like this that demonstrates their bad faith.

    --
    The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
  22. Bitcoin Microtransactions by mentil · · Score: 2

    Microtransactions were once suggested as a solution to this problem, but credit card transaction fees destroy the profitability unless these are collected regularly and then charged in bulk. Some startup could sell NetBux, so a $0.05 microtransaction could be transferred free deducting from a $5 balance; credit card companies would only get a cut for that single $5 purchase. However, unless every browser manufacturer integrates NetBux support, it's dead in the water. Since everyone and their grandma would want to own the NetBux standard and take a cut of that, the most viable option is Bitcoin: it's free, noone owns it, it already exists, and has widely supported infrastructure.

    Your browser would have a new UI element that lets you type in a redemption code for a Bitcoin card you buy at a store, or you can import from a wallet. It'd also have as part of the UI what your balance is. If you go to the landing page of say CNN.com it'd advertise prominently what the cost per story is. Click on a story, and before it pops up, the web browser asks if you accept the charge and tells you what the cost is. If you accept, then that amount is deducted, with an option to 'remember for this site.' This site would then be whitelisted, but only at the agreed-upon fee. The whitelist would need to only work for certain subdomains, or something, so that an official page could charge you, but not user content (comments, complementary webpages ala Angelfire, email, etc.) Perhaps it'd involve signed certificates; if you want to charge to access a page, there's no excuse for it not to be encrypted.
    It'd be anonymous enough for most people, and porn sites would love it: "click this video, only 3cents; access this photo gallery for 2cents".
    It'd also make it trivial to finally implement the 'paid prioritized email' idea, so that non-spam would make it through filters by being accompanied by a 'gift' of a couple cents.

    One downside is that it'd be an obvious target for malware; have your botnet send their $5 to your anonymous account. Tying a credit card to the browser to auto-refill the balance would be even worse. There'd also be young kids who click 'accept' on the 'deduct $1.00?' prompts not realizing it's real money, and parents who are sick of refilling their kids' browsers, wondering where that money is going.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Bitcoin Microtransactions by Reeses · · Score: 1

      Get your mom to start using BitCoin then report back. :)

      Or your granddad.

      That's only mostly tongue in cheek.

      That's the hurdle.

      --
      Reeses
    2. Re:Bitcoin Microtransactions by BadgerSauce · · Score: 1

      Mom and Granddad wont need to (knowingly) use bitcoin to use something like this.

      The software that handles the bitcoin microtransactions (the browser, plugin, whatever) can be built on top of Bitcoin without exposing it to the user. It can have a very simple UI.

      If you DO have any bitcoin, you can load it into the software yourself, and for example each one bitcoin appears in the UI as 1,000,000 "microbits" or "[amount in local currency]" or whatever the UI wants or allows you to call them. (However if its displayed in local currency, the value would fluctuate as bitcoin market value changes).

      If you are Mom or Granddad, you may not know what a bitcoin is, you just know that you need to get some "microbits" to pay for stuff. You use the link they provide to enter your credit card number (or even purchase a key from somewhere else that you can enter), and they sell you "microbits" and make some profit from you.

      If the website owner is a Mom or Granddad, they can use the same type of software to collect their microtransactions from you, and pay a fee to get a check mailed to them. If they know anything about Bitcoin, they will collect their bitcoin in the wallet of their choice.

    3. Re:Bitcoin Microtransactions by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The problem with Bitcoin is that it's an expensive transaction. Somebody has to do the proof-of-work to verify the transaction, and the proof-of-work is deliberately expensive. The only way to do it is to batch transactions, and that runs into the same problems as doing it with dollars or euros.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  23. Re:Page loading has always been far slower with ad by hawguy · · Score: 1

    I think the advertisers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The metrics show that their ads have lousy response rates, so they make them more obtrusive, which increases their click-through rates, yes. But then those buying the advertising eventually look at 'completion rates', and find that the obtrusive ads have lower completion rates - IE somebody actually buying the product/service, signing up, whatever. Most of the increase is from a higher mis-click rate where the user is hitting close or back as quickly as they can.

    While it's true that I tend to click on the obtrusive ads much more than the low-key unobtrusive ones, that's only because I'm trying to click on the f'ing tiny little close button (which is even harder to hit on a tablet or phone). Then when I click on the add because I missed the close button by a pixel or two and the advertiser's page loads, I'm pissed off at whatever they are advertising, so I can't imagine that my click was worth paying for.

  24. Too long to load a page, just lost a sale by RY · · Score: 2

    Whenever a site takes an overly long time to load or is add loaded I go to their competotors web site which seems to be quicker loading. Also many ad rotator providers have become 0-day security risk so I just block them by default.

  25. Better profits from a slow shared hosting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say its so... So picking a slow host would maximize adsense profits? I always knew that shitty host would pay off some day. lol

    To bad Google penalizes slow hosts.

  26. Re:Page loading has always been far slower with ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The metrics show that their ads have lousy response rates,

    Posting AC to not burn mod points.

    Welcome to the Core truth of advertising - it doesn't work.

    Years ago, I had a video and photo business. The only purpose for advertising it was to let people know we were there.

    There is a huge differrence between letting people know you exist, and the advertisement making them buy something. Becase the ad don't do shit.

    So my modest ad with a photo of a good looking couple or some widget I photographed did as much for me as the guy who spent several thousand a month for the big ads.

    Know what works? Word of mouth. Must have been around 85 percent of my business was referral - and the only cost of that was doing a good job, and not being an asshat.

    I'd further postulate that the intrusive ads actually have a negative effect. I installed adblock and no script and run a hostfile to make browsing at least bearable. But I'd never buy a damned thing from the assholes that drove me to protect my computer. Largely because of their intrusive ads.

  27. how to lose a future return visitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    long load times mean greater chance i'm not returning

  28. what we really need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is apk-block plus

  29. Seems Unlikely by NitWit005 · · Score: 1

    Google is the largest in the real-time-bidding area, and they clearly care a lot about getting the bids in a short time. They directly suggest that you have machines physically located near their trading locations, and encourage you to peer with their routers: https://developers.google.com/... It's possible some of the other exchanges behave badly, but the benefit of waiting longer is going to be fairly small. All their bidders designed their systems to meet that 100ms time window. The benefit of waiting isn't going to be that great when all the heavy bidders already have bids in.

  30. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can hosts block obnoxious stupid cunts like apk?

  31. Advertising industry "shoot-own-foot" by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    If the page loads slow, the user will go. Elsewhere.

    This is good news. I sincerely hope it triggers a fevered rush by advertisers to outdo each other in slowing down page loads.

    One of the rare occasions I've found a compelling reason to endorse stupid.

  32. Re: Ublock does less & eats more vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moron, learn to write a program that actually works

  33. Re: AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-ou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a moron. You can't write a user friendly app that actually works. Your app hangs all the time without installing zilch into the hosts file

  34. Re: AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-ou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn how to code a functioning app before you advertise it

  35. Is that why slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    loads slower than soylent?

  36. Of course its slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many 2MB copies of YUI/JQuery/processing.js did you expect to run in a single session ? poor browser is being DOS attacked by advert/tracking/domOfTheWeek libraries all wanting to redefine getElementByID their own special way.

  37. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Somebody is trying to push his crappy product really hard. With Slashdot postings that are Ads. Pretty ironic.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  38. Leaders leading astray. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about when you do a search on Google, and you go to click the first result, and then right before you`re able to click, the ads load and is inserted exactly where the top result (or maybe second top result) was? The best way to avoid this is to just stop using Google because power corrupt...ed. Ad`s are fine. Raise the standards and raise the payouts. It is beneficial to everyone if information about products or services that provide value to people at a cost is properly communicated through advertising.

    1. Re:Leaders leading astray. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I don't know about ads (I think I trained my brain to ignore them), but slashdot does exactly the same thing.

  39. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  40. You're welcome to do better... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I suspect you don't possess the skills to do so...

    * :)

    APK

    P.S.=> You also certainly can't seem to prove my points wrong in this link either -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & ALL YOU HAD WAS TECHNICALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE DOWNMODS - So, you're lack of abilities on BOTH fronts speaks WORLDS about you, troll... apk

  41. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  42. Ublock = inferior & inefficient 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/...

    ... apkANSWER ="NO" to each

  43. Which of these that fear hosts are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Which of those 4 types are you that FEAR hosts?

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

    * Doesn't 'take a brain' to realize THAT much - after all: THEY'RE THE ONES WHO GET "HURT" by it - problem is THEY have been hurting others bandwidth/speed, security, & more for DECADES...

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

    APK

    P.S.=> In fact? I'd almost WAGER per #3 above in this case, that it's Wladimir Palant (AdBlock creator) who wrote me by email, 1st, saying "hosts are a shitty solution" - well, when I confonted him in email reply to show me that "Almost ALL ADS BLOCKED" can do MORE than custom hosts? He refused to reply, & RAN like a scared rabbit - ESPECIALLY after this article study showed how massively INEFFICIENT in RAM (5gb usage) & HIGH CPU USAGE AdBlock is https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

    OR

    Sebastian Noack (AdBlock+ 'creator' who merely bit off W. Palant's code) ... apk

  44. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  45. I seem to have invited the insane in.... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    My apologies for that.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:I seem to have invited the insane in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're nuts trolling apk and losing. Consider consequences of your actions. Your the nut here troll. You failed.

  46. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

    I'm trying to figure out how exactly he knows when to jump in with his verbal diarrhea. I suspect he's got some web searches for "adblock" and "apk", among other things. He clearly takes this all very seriously, keeping tabs on his various anonymous posts so he can jump in with his super clever "you still can't prove me wrong" and if you really rustle his jimmies he'll stalk you and post about how you're a troll and shit. Which is pretty amusing, since his constant crapfloods and shit posts are classic trolling. Guess it takes one to know one, eh APK?

    P.s. inb4 "Show me your medical license 'Doc' Honcho, blah blah blah."

    --
    Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  47. Re:For best speed, security, reliability, & an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adblock+ 4 lyfe! Fuck u apk! Hosts file is arpanet-era baggage that needs to die.

  48. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 2

    APK

    Fuck off APK. Once was enough of your damaged posts, beyond that it's just shilling for shit.

    Why don't you go home and spend some quality time with Sex Conker, be the cow in his life.

    If we wanted a brain dead multi-megabyte host file we'd make it ourselves - certainly wouldn't download one of yours everyday.

    Now if only I had a filter for APK without having to browse at above 0 and miss some of the good posts....

  49. Re:Ublock does less & eats more vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    APK's host file ships with Windows 10.

  50. Ad Blockers by Tom · · Score: 1

    If you're not using an ad blocker in 2015, you're an idiot. It really is that simple.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Ad Blockers by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but that's not going to help here. Despite the headline, the article is about the publisher of the content delaying the loading of the page to screw advertisers, not the advertisers trying to screw the readers.

      If the publisher is delaying the page loading process, then it doesn't matter if you have adblock or not, you're going to see delays.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  51. Re: Industry 2nd opinion by Bovius · · Score: 5, Informative

    I used to work for a company that, in a roundabout way, presented advertising to consumers. And, I mean...yeah, of course they waited longer than 100ms for everyone to get their bids in.

    What many people don't consider is that while the primary ad presenter is getting bids, many of those buyers are doing an auction to their own list of buyers, and some of those do auctions too, etc., etc. So a lot of those buyers would take longer than the time limit we wanted to come back to us, but they were usually some of our biggest buyers. The ones that didn't actually buy many ads would get discontinued, because we didn't want to slow down load time for someone that never actually won the bid. But the big buyers, we would generally loosen the time constraints.

    The wording of the summary and article make it sound like the advertisers are cackling and holding up their pinky finger, smiting the populace with longer load times for the monies. The reality is that they aren't thinking about your load times at all, most of the time. You are the product. Load times really only entered the minds of business leaders when traffic volume was dropping.

  52. What is with the current trend of Profit=evil? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
    Anyone know of any businesses doing anything for a loss? I knew of one, but they went out of business and everyone (who hadn't quit) was out of a job.

    While tragic, I'm sure the unemployed were comforted in knowing that their (former) company wasn't profiting off of anyone.

    1. Re:What is with the current trend of Profit=evil? by frog_strat · · Score: 1

      The idea is that there is more than one perspective to consider. I could make money pimping my kids, or reducing my mother-in-law to two meals a day. Profit at any cost is the name of the game these days. It is a sinking ship. Here, have a life preserver.

    2. Re:What is with the current trend of Profit=evil? by suutar · · Score: 1

      People see a difference between different levels of profit. Most folks see at least two levels - "okay" and "excessive". The border is subjective and situational, and usually based to some degree on whether the profiting entity is seen as harming others, either deliberately or accidentally, and also whether the profits are larger or smaller than previous years. Increasing profits for an entity perceived as having done harm get a lot of attention (BP after the gulf spill, for example).

      So it's not as simple as profit=evil... but "the love of money is the root of all evil", so they do correlate strongly.

    3. Re:What is with the current trend of Profit=evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *rolls eyes and sighs* Yet another yahoo that somehow gets "all ads are bad" out of posts that blatantly say "obnoxious ads, and this practice - if true - are bad."
       
        Reading comprehension... it works...

    4. Re:What is with the current trend of Profit=evil? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      This is editorial opinion and is designed to manipulate. (You learn about how to look out for these things in media class). We never see headlines like "Intel increases next gen processor speed to 6GHz For Profit".

    5. Re:What is with the current trend of Profit=evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      profit is a side effect of good business, it's not supposed to be a goal in and of itself.

      More generally the purpose of economics is to provide goods and services, not profit.

  53. Splains it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    So Comcast isn't incompetent after all, just bribed up the wazoo.

  54. I knew it was going to be bad. by adhdengineer · · Score: 1

    Came to read interesting comments. Left because of APK posts.

    1. Re:I knew it was going to be bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right.

      Seems like a good hosts file helps, but this bullshit is pretty hard to wade through.

    2. Re:I knew it was going to be bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adblock shills minusmod apk, no valid technical justifications why either proves apk right. Apk posts again to spite them and to rub it in their puny weapon can't bully him. I would too. He's winning easily on facts you can't prove wrong.

    3. Re:I knew it was going to be bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apk's not posting bullshit. He's only kicking the hell out of adblock shills http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7755483&cid=50207785

    4. Re:I knew it was going to be bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left since you ran out of modpoints to downmod apk's posts you can't prove wrong sockpuppet shill for adblock. You're transparently obvious.

    5. Re:I knew it was going to be bad. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Worse, he's now started posting bullshit trying to pretend he's being downmodded by people supporting adblock.

      Not only is he stupid enough to spam slashdot, he's stupid enough not to realise that spam gets modded down.

      It really has made this whole article a fucking waste of time from a comments front. Slashdot editors really need to blacklist his IP - maybe using their hosts file.

    6. Re:I knew it was going to be bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cedric, even worse is you're too stupid to stop him or prove his points on hosts wrong dumbo. Nobody can stop him or they would have by now you brainless imbecile Cedric.

  55. Another solution by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    is quite simple.
    bought advertisements, targeted for the site, bought from the site.

    not involving the ad network middlemen. the problem with them in the first place is that any friggin site can have ad network ads in the first place and as result there's no CURATION whatsoever and quality of content doesn't really matter(only getting the viewer to the page matters! if the content is worse than the ad then that's a plus for the publisher too.. ).

    the cancer of the modern internet is quite simply the ad networks - it makes it possible to monetize a site on the day one before a single human being looks at the site and thinks "do I want to pay ads to appear on this piece of shit?". it also leads to rather shitty content and just verbatim copied content propagating without reason.

    then there's the cancer of the cancer: chained advertisement sites! you know, paying for clickbait advertisements that then only lead to pages that have MORE advertisements in an effort to pay for clicks that are supposed to be worth more directly just in adverts.

    mobile slashdot sucks bigtime because of their advertisements. it makes it stutter even on galaxy note edge and I seriously doubt even the editors know what kind of advertisements get inserted(half a screen sized shit that is poorly coded making scrolling stutter). if they were advertisements bought from slashdot served _from_ slashdot with some sort of editiorial resemblance it wouldn't be half bad. now they only rely on miss clicks when scrolling. the stuttering makes the miss clicks even more likely!

    all the browsers should just ship with ad blocking. but why do you think google came up with Chrome in the first place?

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  56. Re: AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Please, please, either stop posting your long winded message or just reduce the content down to a few lines. You have made your point, many of times, and obviously are proud of your product / solution. But some of us are getting tired of reading it over, and over, and over, and over. Please show a little bit of respect to others here and stop posting it so much.

    Regards,
    Your fellow Geeks

  57. Re:Page loading has always been far slower with ad by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Like I said - higher mis-click rate. Making the close buttons tiny only pisses users off more, but ad servers 'encourage' that because they're paid more by the click, as you say. But that just pisses users off. I think the ad people are 'okay' with it because hunting for the close button helps.

    Oh, and I've seen a number on my phone lately where they put the close button on the left side, not the right where you expect it.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  58. Advertising by jandersen · · Score: 2

    First off, let me clarify: I can actually see the value of good advertising, and there are adverts that I have enjoyed in the past, mostly the ones that manage to be humorous. A good example in UK is the a chain of opticians called Specsavers; they are not actually particularly good, in my view, but the adverts are fabulous. Another one is for a roadside assistance provider (RAC? Blue Flag?) where a guy fills up with the wrong fuel and has a nightmare fantasy about his girlfriend writing a song called 'Piggy Eyes'. Heady stuff.

    But the industry should pull their socks up and police their own ranks, because 90% or more is utter, vile crap, that only serves to drive people away from the products they advertise. Or failing that, governments should do it for them, harshly and draconically. It isn't just about protecting consumers, it is about protecting legitimate businesses and their legitimate advertising as well.

  59. Re:Page loading has always been far slower with ad by Firethorn · · Score: 2

    Normally they're looking at 'fantasy'. They're paying more than they want for the number of responses they get.

    Like I was trying to point out earlier, paper, magazine, television, and radio ad responses are harder to measure than computer ad 'click-through'. Some of the examinations I've seen has the experts pointing out that there is reason to believe that the 'estimated' response for traditional media advertising has been vastly over-estimated.

    Basically, they were backtracking to try to figure out why computer ads were doing so 'poorly' compared to existing media using various metrics, when they realized that computer ads aren't less effective according to traditional metrics, but are lousy by the enhanced metrics. Then they started looking into traditional advertising, and started finding the same things - advertising not as effective as believed.

    This probably is part of what led to the even more advertising, but that has the problem that it's actively driving viewers away from traditional media.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  60. Re:Page loading has always been far slower with ad by cusco · · Score: 1

    there is reason to believe that the 'estimated' response for traditional media advertising has been vastly over-estimated.

    That would explain the massive amount of junk mail still being sent out. I don't know anyone who opens the big thick envelope of ads that we get every Tuesday, or who has ever even leafed through the ten page advertising flyer that comes on Tuesday and Friday. The local bird-cage-liner newspaper claims a circulation of 40,000, but most of those never make it any further into the house than the recycle bin.

    I guess I shouldn't complain though, the junk mail helps subsidize the USPS.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  61. Video ad duplication and isp quotas by sjwest · · Score: 1

    I have three browsers two have ad block one does not and that gets little use. I use the non adblock for flash as flash can kill my linux desktop with a restart at a certain resolution.

    So i get adverts in this use case, most of the adverts where repeated, and one was an infomercial for a water heater which ran to twenty minutes was relatively local to my location and it played about fifteen times in the hour of the flash thing. The next day i looked at the band width used was incredible and decided that if I was the firm who bought the slots knew that i had seen it fifteen times then would be downright pissed off at the ad serving company.

    Sure there ad got seen fifteen times by one set of eyeballs who was a 'local' but i dont have an immersion heater. Actually i found the ins and out of bad installations of these products interesting but i soon returned to my adblock browser. If isps insist on quotas for end users then ad block makes a lot a sense.

    1. Re:Video ad duplication and isp quotas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's this thing called click-to-play

    2. Re:Video ad duplication and isp quotas by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      So i get adverts in this use case, most of the adverts where repeated, and one was an infomercial for a water heater which ran to twenty minutes was relatively local to my location and it played about fifteen times in the hour of the flash thing.

      You should have seen the ad campaign last election season. I live in a state of less than a million people, that's nominally 'conservative', but had a democratic senator. That campaign was intense.

      How intense? Think about the hassle of $200 worth of political advertising between the two of them, per registered voter.

      Because of the auction system and the amount/value of those political ads, if the saw that your IP was from our state, you saw nothing else. And many of them were full video ads.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  62. Re: AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got nerve after minusmodding him for no good technical reason. He posts again after those making it visible. Eventually you run out of your modpoints you use maliciously.

    Apparently apk has no posting limitations as anonymous like most anons do and you can't stand that either since it takes your unjustifiable minusmods and runs you out of them eventually everytime. We've all seen it.

    You never prove him wrong on his points in favor of hosts he lists so it shows us how you misuse them trolling him as anon after you run out of your modpoints you probably have many sockpuppets postings karma farming for you for that.

    Whatever it is you are trying you're failing and apk's winning on facts alone you can't prove wrong.

  63. Can't get it to work? Try this... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Windows version you use? If VISTA or more Firewall rule's needed so let it thru your firewall inbound @ least IF you are having an issue (it has network code in it is why to obtain data via downloads, & that *may* be your problem).

    You also *may* have the issue MS introduced in "Windows Defender" in VISTA where you have to make a rule in it to ALLOW hosts alteration - that is ANOTHER KNOWN ISSUE MS introduced regarding hosts most everyone KNOWS about too!

    * I've had that happen with games like IDSoftware stuff, that MIGHT be your problem

    OR

    You didn't set your local dnscache clientside slower usermode service off as the program & it's installation directions recommend is all!

    (Windows has an issue w/ larger hosts files in that service & this program creates large hosts files for more speed, security, reliability + anonymity online...)

    Lastly: Windows VISTA onward = SERIOUS JUNK (which is why nobody bought it or 8.x).

    APK

    P.S.=> I hope you're not being a troll & only didn't realize that much is all... apk

  64. Ublock = inferior & inefficient 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

  65. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quit cryin'! You're too weak to validly technically prove apk wrong.

  66. So, does he have evidence? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Frankly, "his conviction" that they do this isn't really all that damning. Does he have any actual, you know, PROOF that this is true?

    Disclaimer: I use AdBlock, and never see this stuff anyway....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  67. airlines by bingoUV · · Score: 1

    After some major disasters, airline disaster begged the governments to regulate them so that users could trust them again. Otherwise in "free market" there is no way new airlines can be blocked from taking some risks with users' safety for saving a few bucks and thus scare users into avoiding ALL airlines.

    Advertisers know there are bad apples in the lot, their own brethren. They don't do anything to protect the user. So they are distrusted. So Adblock.

    If they want to get back into users' trust, it is their job to figure out how. But taking a leaf out of airlines' book would at least be considered an attempt to win back trust.

    Before you dismiss these as dissimilar cases, think this.
    Use of a typical advertisement poses a lot less risk than an airline - chance of computer infection vs dying in a fireball. Discontinuation of the use of an advertisement is also a lot easier than that of an airline - installing adblock once vs travelling 5-10 times slower. The ratio of "ease of avoidance" vs "value" is not very different between airlines and advertisements.

    --
    Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  68. Yes, all that and more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And with much less load on the computer resources and less annoyance in the advertising for it.

    1. Re:Yes, all that and more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unjustifiable downmods on apk's posts but no one proved him wrong makes me believe apk.

    2. Re:Yes, all that and more. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Unjustifiable? He's spamming.

      Proving him wrong? He's generally not wrong. He's attempting to mislead people by being selective about the information that he chooses to present.

      His claims are mostly sound (I'd quibble over a few of the more subjective ones), but he's only presenting information that supports his product, while ignoring similar information that supports competing products. He's presenting this as some sort of a rivalry between hosts and ad-blocking extensions, and only talks about the benefits that hosts has, when the truth of the matter is that each of them has different capabilities and excels in different areas, so they're best used in a complementary fashion, rather than mutually exclusively. There are a number of things that ad-blocking extensions can do that hosts can't, but you'll be hard-pressed to get him to acknowledge them. Likewise, you'll be hard-pressed to get him to acknowledge that ad-blocking extensions may be a better solution for certain people who aren't technically-inclined and would have trouble using a tool such as his (assuming they can use it at all, since his tool doesn't run on OS X, for instance, last I checked).

  69. DocHoncho = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & prove this all wrong: 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

  70. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Because they don't know it isn't working. They only suspect. And if they DIDN'T "advertise", they'd be out of a job.

    Since nobody can PROVE that advertising like this has no effect (after all, it's idiomatic that if you advertise, people will remember your name and the product more than if you didn't) and the hype is that this will be MORE effective than before (even if it's only in a "this time it will work" way) by the people whose job is to advertise, then there's no way to stop it.

    CEOs bankrupt companies all the time. Bad CEOs make bad decisions. Yet somehow billions are wasted on higher and higher salaries for CEOs because "you have to have the best CEO and that will make you far more money than their salary, so profit!".

    No evidence that a CEO brings in any money.

    Try getting the CEO sacked and the position closed as a shareholder, though.

    Now think of what the CEO has to face getting rid of the marketing department (from which they probably came)...

    Remember, these companies aren't spending their money, they're spending their customers' money. And the more of that they spend, the bigger their percentage cut of the spend is, and the higher their "justified" salary is.

    1. Re:Yes. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That is *their* money - it belongs to the company. Once you give something away it no longer belongs to you. If I pay you for services rendered it is your money - it no longer belongs to me in a legal, abstract, or philosophical way. Once you pay a company you have given up that money. It then belongs to the company.

      I suspect you are daft, ignorant, or trying to troll.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  71. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For TV adverts, there are a large AND GROWING segment of people who hate adverts now. Didn't before, because they used to be fine, but now they are refusing it.

    Why?

    Because accepting adverts doesn't mean accepting whatever overload of advert the advertisers want put there. When was the last time a channel asked viewers how much time out of programming they should have for advertising? NEVER.

    And now there's 12 minutes of adverts for 18 minutes of programming. And people aren't liking it.

    See all the hate for ad skipping and how it's "theft".

    Your claim that adverts are accepted is wrong factually: many people now hate adverts.

    It is also wrong logically: they aren't ALLOWED to disagree, no agreement is ever reached.

    So your post is 100% bullshit.

    1. Re:Bullshit by KGIII · · Score: 1

      They do accept it. If they did not accept it they would not be watching it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Bullshit by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Which is why the TV viewing public always considered advertising time as the time to hit the bathroom or cook the popcorn. Many people don't sit through the ads, and nothing requires them to do so. With Tivo now, I know people who pause the show when they need to go to the bathroom and fast forward through the commercials.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re:Bullshit by KGIII · · Score: 1

      But they still consume the ads and media. They still buy the products. The ad ecosystem is not going away. There was no utopia on the 'net where ads did not exist - we called them webrings back then. Everyone was always advertising something else. People were always listening. It is more prevalent and easier now than ever but this has not changed and people will always opt to consume the media and will opt to buy the advertised products. Citation? Ads still exist. They can (and do) track them and track their effectiveness. If they did not work we would not have ads.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:Bullshit by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      People consume ads when not watching them? How does that work?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    5. Re:Bullshit by KGIII · · Score: 1

      They are obviously watching otherwise they would not be paying. I suppose you know better than the experts who track these sorts of things. I am not sure why you think a company is solely motivated by greed in one thread and then presume that they are paying for ads for no reason in another. Just because you do not watch ads does not mean that they are not being watched. They are, they are selling things through them still, and this is unlikely to change in the near future. But you know better... Cute.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Bullshit by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I can't say I have ever seen a camera on a TV to make sure you are watching the ads. please show me evidence of this.

      Considering for years advertising has been tanking, it must be me that is causing it according to you, but I don't know anything.

      Where am I speaking of companies being motivated by greed?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:Bullshit by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah those companies are just paying for ads because it is tradition and not because they have millions of data points that track purchase times and places to verify those ads are watched and acted on. Yup... You are definitely right and they are wasting their money.

      You serve no valid function and are summarily dismissed. Have a day.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:Bullshit by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because Coke and Pepsi really need to advertise, and Budweiser always sells more beer because they advertise.

      Look, you can keep trying to say that because people spend money on it, it must still be working, however, smarter people than I have run scientific studies showing that advertising just doesn't work as well as was thought previously. Try it yourself if you like, buy an advertisement for something and see how much interest you get. Digital media has shown the advertisers that ads just don't work. The clickthrough on advertisements in digital media is abismal. It is widely considered now that the traditional media advertising response rates was wildly inflated and was likely nowhere near what it was claimed to be.

      But I'm the one without a valid function...have a GOOD day to you too.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    9. Re:Bullshit by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Here are the numbers for my other post:

      http://www.smartinsights.com/i...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  72. Re: AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi, why do you think someone has to prove you wrong on any point? You spammed the whole thread, that alone qualifies you as an idiot.

  73. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it is not possible to prove apk wrong, but whether (s)he is right or wrong there is no need to keep posting the 'claims' so many times.

  74. Yo, dawg! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    You can fill in the rest

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  75. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    APK, has it ever occurred to you that this repeated posting of the same copy/paste is actually worse than many ads? You are as bad as the pop over ads, and almost as bad as an autoplay video. No one cares how good you think your software is. ABP works, ublock works, your shit just annoys the hell out of people. We are all technical people, if we find the need to run a monolithic hosts file, we will find yours with Google. Constantly spamming your unblockable ad just irritates people and makes them want to blacklist your hosts file instead.

    You are worse than many ads, does your hosts file block your persistent ads?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  76. Re:Page loading has always been far slower with ad by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Those go right into the recycle bin in my house. I asked the mail women if there was any way I could set "current resident" to "return to sender" which made her chuckle and point out that the ads are likely the only thing keeping the post office afloat.

    I actually told the paper boy I didn't want the paper at all when he first asked. So now it gets thrown into my parking spot for free instead...quite irritating having to clean up the garbage they throw into my spot though.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  77. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it is fun to pick on him, but it gets old. I try to educate him about how he appears to us now.

    I place him somewhere between popover ads and autoplay video ads. I would pay for his product if it blocked his crapflood on Slashdot, but even his hosts files can't block his own ads.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  78. Re:Page loading has always been far slower with ad by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    doing a good job, and not being an asshat

    But that's beyond most people's abilities.
    Plus, paying for advertising is easier.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  79. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by gweihir · · Score: 1

    I think this person has some pretty bad mental defects that make him do this with compulsion on the level of an automaton. Maybe his psychiatrist recommended communicating with other people or something like it.

    Fortunately, the style is an immediate warning to any non-insane person as to what is going on here.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  80. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  81. Unjustifiably downmod me?... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: You bring on my reposts - All you have's downmods that are technically unjustified!

    I just repost after them - you fail/lose, period.

    * :)

    (... And, you KNOW it...)

    You care & can't prove me wrong - & you'll run dry of your bogus downmod points in the end...

    Me, by way of comparison?

    Heck - I NEVER "run dry" of the ability to post here (unlike most AC users) so you "registered 'lusers'" with your 50 fake sockpuppet accounts to farm karma with to bully ac's like myself??

    USELESS...

    APK

    P.S.=> When "the best you got" = bogus downmods vs. my points showing hosts do more for speed, security, reliability, & anonymity online for users? You're showing you failed vs. myself, + that adblock variants in addons don't do a fraction of what hosts do, & that hosts do all that for less - those addons fail as well, just like you... apk

  82. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    I'm a fan of apk. Yes he trolls, but he only trolls where it's contextually appropriate. I respect that.

  83. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's more fun seeing apk turn you into "Run, Forrest: RUN" http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

  84. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Illogical failed ad hominem attacks != valid Forrest http://news.slashdot.org/comme... and it's utterly hilarious seeing apk run you all dry of your modpoints after downmodding his posts and yet you never ever proved his points on hosts files superiority to other inferior methods like browser addons wrong.

  85. Re: AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Minusmod apk he posts again. Ran out modpoints I see. Adblock's inferior to hosts or you'd prove otherwise. You can't.

  86. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Minusmod me for no reason I'd do what apk has showing you're weak there too if I could post unlimitedly by ac like apk does.

  87. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  88. Ublock = inferior & inefficient 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/...

    ... apkb

  89. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    I'm a fan of apk. Yes he trolls, but he only trolls where it's contextually appropriate. I respect that.

    Sad. And sadly deluded. Like I said, one post is more than enough - does that not sound like respect for the deranged? He's got what - more than a dozen fat trolls posted in response to this story?

    You must be new around here - or have a distorted idea of "contextually appropriate". He trolls anywhere, and he stalks anywhere.

    What do you call a mugging? Performance theatre?

    I suppose by your logic Love Canal was some sort of wetlands revegetation project.

  90. Ublock = inferior & inefficient 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

  91. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but that is not my account. Also, I have never run from APK. Though his particular form of insanity is pretty scary.

    Get help man, it can't be healthy to live like this.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  92. Ublock = inferior & inefficient 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

  93. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    I had a long back-and-forth with apk a few months ago. I largely agree with him, except inasmuch as he sets it up as an "either/or" rivalry between extensions and the use of a properly configured hosts file, rather than recognizing that extensions and hosts are best used in a complementary relationship with one another.

    For instance, there are a number of features that extensions can do that hosts simply can't do (e.g. outright removing elements from the DOM so that they doesn't waste screen space), yet apk was reluctant to acknowledge those benefits in the discussion we had, though he was very quick to acknowledge the things that hosts can do that extensions simply can't do (e.g. blocking malicious traffic outside of the browser). He's not wrong about the benefits of hosts, but it makes it a bit hard to take him seriously when he's only willing to acknowledge facts that point towards the benefits of his product and is quick to dismiss valid use cases that don't align with how his product gets used.

    As an example of that, when I suggested that one benefit of extensions was how easily they could be recommended to and used by non-technical users, since they're widely compatible and setup generally consists of just clicking a download link, he continued to insist that hosts was easier to setup, use, and keep up-to-date, and held up his product as proof of that fact. He didn't have an answer for me when I pointed out that his software can't run on my primary PC at home since it's booted into OS X. Nor, would I imagine, would he have an answer for me if we started discussing iOS, since users don't have access to the hosts files, whereas they do have access to extensions.

    Meanwhile, you're engaging in what appears to be a non-ironic use of ad hominem to suggest that someone isn't skilled enough to make their point. Ouch.

  94. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You downmod apk yet can't prove him wrong. Apk's just kicking you registered user sockpuppeteer bullies around with your technically unjustified downmods of his posts by showing he's an ac that can get around post limits to do it. I suppose you think you're fooling us with your line of crap now, right? Wrong.

  95. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know apk's correct on hosts now admitting it. Apk's easy to take seriously when you can't prove him wrong and downmod his posts without stating validly technically on what grounds why. Apk shows hosts do more for less against clearly inferior browser addons. Nobody proves him wrong on what he states. Only unjustifiable downmods of his posts. I'd do what he has too showing registered user sockpuppeting bullies their single weapon of a rotten downmod won't work against him since he posts without limits here as ac and most can't. I'd do the same were you all to do that to me if I knew how to like apk does.

  96. Anubis IV, which sockpuppet'd you use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I had a long back-and-forth with apk a few months ago. I largely agree with him" - by Anubis IV (1279820) on Wednesday July 29, 2015 @01:25PM (#50206583)

    See subject: Where was that? Prove you posted as Anubis IV doing it.

    * No, I'd have it bookmarked IF you did, since I KNOW nobody can validly prove my points on hosts incorrect, period (it's never happened once)...

    I block out far MORE than only ads, but also tons of threats to your speed and security online as well - & almostALLAdsBlocked + other slow usermode inefficient addons don't.

    APK

    P.S.=> Time to either PROVE yourself here (it's possible I *may* have missed bookmarking it, but that's NOT usually me), OR prove you're a sockpuppeting troll (or that you harassed me by AC posts AFTER downmodding me with your registered 'luser' modpoints or those of sockpuppets you use - & don't even *TRY* tell me THAT "doesn't go on here & I don't do it"... tons of you fools do keeping either multiple accounts OR downmodding hit & run minus any valid technical justifications vs. my points, then trolling me by ac posts after you run out of modpoints - which you ALL do since I can post without limits on /., & most other ac posters can't)... apk

    1. Re:Anubis IV, which sockpuppet'd you use? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      The first DuckDuckGo search I did turned up our last discussion. But thanks for jumping to wrong conclusions that are easily disproven and then basing a series of false accusations on them. I've come to expect nothing less from you.

      (quick aside: while I know others have multiple accounts, this is my only one, and the only time I post as AC is when I post sensitive information)

      Anyway, I have no intention of getting dragged into another discussion with you. You and I have already said what we want to say to each other, both in that last discussion and in the one that preceded it (which is linked from the last one). I have nothing more to add, and I'm frankly not interested in hearing anything else you might have to say.

      Have a good day.

  97. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  98. Ublock = inferior & inefficient 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

  99. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  100. You've been called out & you're running by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: You can't validly technically prove me wrong so http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    * Put up, or STFU, Anubis IV...

    (See you there)

    APK

    P.S.=> Why in HELL would I use something in browser addons that aren't native to my IP stack like hosts are which hosts also run in a faster/higher cpu serviced mode of operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode with increased messagepassing overheads in inferior addons that do FAR LESS THAN HOSTS yet eat more? That's illogical - like you are, apparently... lol! apk

    1. Re:You've been called out & you're running by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I'm not attempting to prove you wrong. As I said, other than quibbling over some of the subjective claims, I find your objective assertions to be generally accurate, even though they're misleading in how one-sided they are, just the same as when news reporters cherry pick statistics to suit their narrative. Yes, they're factually correct, but you're using them to paint a misleading picture of reality

      I've already provided specific examples of that sort of behavior in response to and in relation to you numerous times (including in the thread you just linked), and I will not be drawn into yet another worthless discussion where we rehash those same points again.

  101. Re:For best speed, security, reliability, & an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No he just fucked you and posted again after you downmod him and he wins like hosts do vs bribed paid to not do its job by default almostalladsblocked that can't do as much as hosts do and yet eat up more.

  102. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  103. Tell us about "AlmostAllAdsBlocked+" Coren22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!

    AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!

    AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!

    AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!

    AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)

    AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!

    AB+ is also detectable by clarityray (via native browser methods) nullifying it (not hosts).

    ---

    I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)?

    Ab+ NO LONGER DOES!

    * AFTER ALL THAT?

    AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!

    If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me!

    APK

    P.S.=> Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?

    (You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See above - it's fact & truth via reputable sources)... apk

    1. Re:Tell us about "AlmostAllAdsBlocked+" Coren22 by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Does your hosts file block your own advertisements? I'd pay for it if it did.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  104. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  105. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  106. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  107. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  108. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  109. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  110. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  111. Can "AlmostAllAdsBlocked" do all this? No 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

  112. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  113. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  114. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  115. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  116. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  117. Ublock = inferior & inefficient 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

  118. Coren22 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!", lmao... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & facts here that made that reality http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * :)

    (You FAIL boy - So does AdBlock & its variants)

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock, Ghostery, UBlock, etc. fail - et al since they don't do a fraction of what hosts can for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online YET THEY EAT MORE, lol... apk

    1. Re:Coren22 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!", lmao... apk by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Does your hosts file block your own advertisements? I'd pay for it if it did.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  119. Thanks Anubis IV... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I agree entirely that extensions are far less efficient than hosts" - by Anubis IV (1279820) on Thursday March 05, 2015 @11:32PM (#49194011) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    You can't + AGREED w/ me then too & that IS truly, that: What's your point?

    "Hosts is significantly more efficient than either of those extensions" - by Anubis IV (1279820) on Thursday March 05, 2015 @11:32PM (#49194011) FROM http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    Per my subject above - THANK YOU for agreeing with me as quote above & MAKING MY POINT FOR ME too...

    My point, which NOBODY ever gets the best of regarding hosts vs. almostALLAdsBlocked?

    That hosts do FAR MORE for FAR LESS + are already natively on your system operating in a faster higher cpu serviced mode of operations in kernelmode vs. addons layered on excessive messagepassing + RAM & CPU consumption in usermode, slowing browsers even MORE due to that - hosts, don't!

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly: Last post, I SPECIFICALLY stated I usually bookmark those but not always even when I am victorious as always, lol!

    So, what's your point THERE too?

    It's not - just trolling & the blatant inability to get the better of me (like adblock + others like it can't vs. hosts - which do FAR MORE, for FAR LESS, no less!)... apk

  120. I merely state documented facts... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: From reputable sources, easily verified on hosts superiority to adblock & its variants.

    APK

    P.S.=> That's not "cherry picking" - it's merely BLOWING AWAY "AlmostALLAdsBlocked"'s sockpuppeteer fanclub of shills with them & ALL THEY HAVE? Downmods, nothing more, so I repost until they run dry and "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!", lol... apk

  121. Does Coren22 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"? Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & this http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    Plus (lmao), apparently, "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" isn't cutting it for Coren22 to blockout facts from reputable sources I post in favor of hosts vs. inferior competitors of all types in browser addons galore, lol!

    (Especially vs. his "so-called 'solution'" (adblock) that's bribed to NOT DO THE ONLY JOB IT HAD BY DEFAULT FULLY doesn't either!)

    I love it, seeing my "detractors/naysayers" being struck speechless vs. that link above being unable to validly technically disprove facts I enumerated there... lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> That, is TRULY, that - you fail as always vs. myself, & adblock/ublock etc. fails vs. hosts as always also on multiple levels... apk

    1. Re:Does Coren22 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"? Yes by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      APK, seek help, you have this delusion, and it doesn't seem to be getting better.

      The FEATURE of which you speak is an optional item, not required. Who cares if ABP subsidises itself by allowing some advertisements through to those who have agreed to see them? Perhaps ABP will lead to more ad networks improving their behavior so they can make some money, who knows.

      Now, if only hosts file or ABP would block your crapflood of posts, life would be grand.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  122. Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    To whatever idiot is posting this: posting multiple long repetitive advertisements with bad typography to a discussion forum is not going to increase my chances of looking at whatever it is you're selling.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  123. The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

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

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

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

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

    ---

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

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

    &

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

    UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

    ---

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

    See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

    ---

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

    You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

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

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

    ---

    YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

    APK

    P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

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

    So

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

    ... apk

  124. The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Google can try explaining it vs. proof my ware's CLEAN:

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

    &

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

    +

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

    * :)

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

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

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

    You failed badly on all accounts.

    APK

    P.S.=> Especially funny is that you work for CLOUDWORDS (an advertiser affiliate of Marketo) which tips your hand & PROVED YOUR ILL MOTIVES for your stupidity, running away from this most of all -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ... apk

  125. Tell us about "AlmostAllAdsBlocked+" Coren22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!

    AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!

    AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!

    AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!

    AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)

    AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!

    AB+ is also detectable by clarityray (via native browser methods) nullifying it (not hosts).

    ---

    I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)?

    Ab+ NO LONGER DOES!

    * AFTER ALL THAT?

    AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!

    If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me!

    APK

    P.S.=> Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?

    (You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See above - it's fact & truth via reputable sources)... apk

  126. Coren22: Questions 4u... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject, "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops 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 more efficiently in cpu + memory usage vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it or as well + 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 dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

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

    Ab+ adds complexity + 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. Coren22: Questions 4u... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject, "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops 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 more efficiently in cpu + memory usage vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it or as well + 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 dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

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

    Ab+ adds complexity + 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

  128. To david_thornley the idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject:... who can't prove me wrong here http://news.slashdot.org/comme... ?

    FACTS: You're off topic + can't get the best of me in facts I posted in that link I just posted.

    You use illogical ad hominem attacks further proving you're nothing but another defeated troll I've dusted regarding hosts files superiority to other "so-called 'methods'" that can't hold a candle to hosts files on many levels - fact.

    * :)

    So, in the end, that all said & aside: YOU FAIL!

    APK

    P.S.=> You shilling adblock sockpuppets will always fail vs. "yours truly" & you KNOW it - why? You're too damn DUMB to take me on, + couldn't do a better program TO SAVE YOUR WORTHLESS USELESS MENIAL LIVES, lol... apk

  129. Re:AdBlock+ does less, eats more & 'souled-out by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

    He thinks we're sock puppets.

    Hello fellow puppet! My name is DocHoncho. I am puppet #3242, and my dream date is a quiet night at home tormenting apk!

    --
    Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  130. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  131. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  133. 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 than ghostery by FAR?

    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

  134. Ublock = inferior & inefficient 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

  135. "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" = DocHoncho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & this -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * :)

    (You're a fool...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep "running", Forrest - lmao... apk

    1. Re:"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" = DocHoncho by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      But the Master wants us to play with you!

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
  136. Coren22: Questions 4u... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject, "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops 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 more efficiently in cpu + memory usage vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it or as well + 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 dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

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

    Ab+ adds complexity + 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

  137. DocHoncho: Questions 4u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject, "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops 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 more efficiently in cpu + memory usage vs. addons

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it or as well + 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 dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!

    +

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

    Ab+ adds complexity + 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

  138. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  139. Ublock = inferior & inefficient 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

  140. 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 than ghostery by FAR?

    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. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  142. Hosts files = best speed & security online by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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

  143. Where bullshitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show me where you prove all my points I list on hosts wrong!

    * You CAN'T, & you KNOW it, loser...

    (You would've done so here now IF you ever did - lol, who are YOU vainly TRYING to fool? Us?? Wrong - you're only fooling yourself...)

    APK

    P.S.=> See my subject & 1st line above? Do it - prove it... apk

  144. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  145. AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' 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

  146. Can't get it to work moron? Try this... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Windows version you use? If VISTA or more Firewall rule's needed so let it thru your firewall inbound @ least IF you are having an issue (it has network code in it is why to obtain data via downloads, & that *may* be your problem)...

    You also *may* have the issue MS introduced in "Windows Defender" in VISTA where you have to make a rule in it to ALLOW hosts alteration - that is ANOTHER KNOWN ISSUE MS introduced regarding hosts most everyone KNOWS about too!

    * I've had that happen with games like IDSoftware stuff, that MIGHT be your problem...

    OR

    You didn't set your local dnscache clientside slower usermode service off as the program & it's installation directions recommend is all!

    (Windows has an issue with larger hosts files in that service & this program creates large hosts files for more speed, security, reliability + anonymity online...)

    Lastly: Windows VISTA onward = SERIOUS JUNK (which is why nobody bought it or 8.x).

    APK

    P.S.=> I hope you're not being a troll & only didn't realize that much is all... apk

  147. Can't get it to work, moron? Try this... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Windows version you use? If VISTA or more Firewall rule's needed so let it thru your firewall inbound @ least IF you are having an issue (it has network code in it is why to obtain data via downloads, & that *may* be your problem)....

    You also *may* have the issue MS introduced in "Windows Defender" in VISTA where you have to make a rule in it to ALLOW hosts alteration - that is ANOTHER KNOWN ISSUE MS introduced regarding hosts most everyone KNOWS about too!

    * I've had that happen with games like IDSoftware stuff, that MIGHT be your problem...

    OR

    You didn't set your local dnscache clientside slower usermode service off as the program & it's installation directions recommend is all!

    (Windows has an issue with larger hosts files in that service & this program creates large hosts files for more speed, security, reliability + anonymity online...)

    Lastly: Windows VISTA onward = SERIOUS JUNK (which is why nobody bought it or 8.x).

    APK

    P.S.=> I hope you're not being a troll & only didn't realize that much is all... apk

  148. Ublock = inferior & inefficient 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

  149. gweihir, you're a fucking incompetent blowhard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS seeing a bullshit artist mere talk TROLLING done zero loser like you has the NERVE to state what you did - especially after you RAN in that link above, gweihir... lol!

    You don't HAVE the ability to code & the link above evidences it - you're a bullshit blowhard, nothing more - a MERE TECHIE MENIAL @ best/most!

    (FACT: Minus coders like myself, you TECHIE or NETWORK ADMIN MENIALS ARE HELPLESS - just as you've SHOWN yourself to be in that link above!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apkb

  150. gweihir you're an incompetent blowhard wannabe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS seeing a bullshit artist mere talk TROLLING done zero loser like you has the NERVE to state what you did - especially after you RAN in that link above, gweihir... lol!

    You don't HAVE the ability to code & the link above evidences it - you're a bullshit blowhard, nothing more - a MERE TECHIE MENIAL @ best/most!

    (FACT: Minus coders like myself, you TECHIE or NETWORK ADMIN MENIALS ARE HELPLESS - just as you've SHOWN yourself to be in that link above!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk

  151. Apologizing for your MASSIVE FAIL, gweihir? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. a fair challenge http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

    * I find it UTTERLY HILARIOUS seeing a bullshit artist mere talk TROLLING done zero loser like you has the NERVE to state what you did - especially after you RAN in that link above, gweihir... lol!

    You don't HAVE the ability to code & the link above evidences it - you're a bullshit blowhard, nothing more - a MERE TECHIE MENIAL @ best/most!

    (FACT: Minus coders like myself, you TECHIE or NETWORK ADMIN MENIALS ARE HELPLESS - just as you've SHOWN yourself to be in that link above!)

    ABOVE ALL ELSE:

    When the likes of MalwareBytes' people host & RECOMMEND YOUR WARE (especially for security as mine is)?

    THEN, you can talk as a peer, you fucking pitiful hot-air windbag wannabe!

    I see you TRY to effetely & vainly play "coder" here, when I KNOW, for a FACT, you're merely a network tech/admin FUCKING MENIAL that merely uses tools that actual coders like MYSELF create for you, USER WITH A BETTER PASSWORD ONLY IN REALITY, merely use!

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on shooting your blowhard done nothing in computing mouth off gweihir - I'll be RIGHT THERE AGAIN to expose your crap yet again (have fun with the shame you'll have to publicly endure here & YOU STARTED IT WITH ME YOU USELESS TROLLING LOSER WITH NO SKILLS BUT LOTS OF MERE "TALK", lmao)... apk