Tardis Wars: The BBC Strikes Back

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tardis Wars: The BBC Strikes Back

Posted by timothy on Monday September 28, 2015 @01:28AM from the when-monopolies-fight dept.

New submitter Elixon writes: Czech trademark monitoring service IP Defender reported that The British Broadcasting Corporation applied for a figurative trademark on the "POLICE PUBLIC CALL BOX" for wide range of goods and services like cinematographic and photographic films, printed publications, key chains, textile goods, toys, telecommunications and more. The Metropolitan Police was defeated by the BBC in the past while trying to monopolize the London police box; now it's the BBC's turn.

72 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

is it just me by thaylin · 2015-09-28 01:34 · Score: 5, Informative

or did this post confuse other people?

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
1. Re:is it just me by beschra · 2015-09-28 01:41 · Score: 2
  
  It's not just you.
  
  --
  It is unwise to ascribe motive
2. Re: is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure that the summary was coherent enough for me to be "confused." I think that I am more "perplexed" than confused, but I am not sure.......
3. Re:is it just me by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2015-09-28 02:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Metropolitan Police was defeated by the BBC in the past while trying to monopolize the London police box; now its the BBC's turn.
  I think it's supposed to mean that it's BBC's turn to try monopolizing the London police box and be defeated later on.
4. Re:is it just me by AmiMoJo · 2015-09-28 02:02 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  What it means to say is that the Metropolitan Police tried to claim a trademark on the blue police box and block the BBC from using it in merchandising (they are dicks like that). This was back in 2002, before the "new" series even started. Anyway, 13 years later the BBC is now applying for a trademark on "POLICE PUBLIC CALL BOX".
  The headline is utter bullshit, there appears to be no link between the Met's asshattery and the current BBC asshattery, other than that they both involve a blue box. The 13 years between these two actions suggests that one is not a reaction to the other, and there is no "strike back" as the Met was decisively slapped down and stopped pursuing its claim more than a decade ago.
  Anyway, shall we use this click-bait article to discuss the new series? I thought that the opening two-parter was pretty good. A bit too much desu-ex as usual, but Davros was portrayed well.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:is it just me by adric22 · 2015-09-28 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  I read the whole summary 3 times and still didn't fully understand it.
6. Re:is it just me by weszz · 2015-09-28 02:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Thanks, was trying to figure out just what was being said...
  I am not a big fan of the sonic sunglasses deal... Maybe it's just me. Other than that have been liking it. I thought this was going to be the end of Clara and she would stay as a Dalek until she crashed on the ship for an older episode and didn't know she was one till the end... but I may be mistaken but I thought she could say her name at that point. not a huge deal, but I found that sequence to be pretty funny.
7. Re:is it just me by gstoddart · 2015-09-28 02:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The summary is confusing, the second from last article is easier:
  In the 50's, there used to be police call boxes. Also in the 50's, the TARDIS was a police call box. The police have since stopped using those boxes.
  At one point the Met tried to assert trademark on the police call boxes. They got told that since other police departments used them, it wasn't a trademark of the Met, but more of a general thing.
  Now, the BBC is saying that the police public call box is now inextricably linked to the TARDIS and wish to have it declared as their trademark.
  And, since nobody else has been using the police call box for anything except as the TARDIS -- depending on who you ask, it is now an image uniquely associated with Dr. Who, and could therefore be a valid trademark.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
8. Re:is it just me by AmiMoJo · 2015-09-28 02:36 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, I'm not sure about the sunglasses either. Let's see I guess. For me they are somewhat symptomatic of the show's biggest weakness - an over-reliance on deus-ex machina. It happened multiple times in those episodes, like when the Daleks shot at the Doctor and Clara but the Tardis protected them while it was invisible for some reason. There is no real danger or suspense, and you aren't trying to guess how it will be resolved because the answer is invariably "the Doctor pulls something out of his arse".
  The Master was pretty good. Insane and always in control, very much the anti-Doctor.
  I think the end was a bit of a cop-out. The Doctor always seems to avoid moral ambiguity somehow.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:is it just me by TWX · 2015-09-28 02:50 · Score: 2
  
  Biggest problem I see is that they created the idea of the TARDIS specifically as a derivative work (ie, back before Gallifrey, before they were called Timelords, there was a madman in a junkyard that built a time machine inside of an old MET Police Box), so I don't see them having a lot of room to prevent people from attempting to create their own MET Police Boxes.
  
  Only thing that I can see them having a handle on is the specifics of the design as they deviated from the original, mostly in the form of the number of inlaid panels between the rails on the sides and doors, but that even follows basic cabinet making techniques.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
10. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  I just don;t understand how the BBC thinks they have any claim to trademark protection on something they had nothing to do with creating. (the blue police box not the Tardis). Honestly the Met Police had a much stronger claim.
11. Re:is it just me by Lemming+Mark · 2015-09-28 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm probably overthinking it but it instantly bothered me that somehow we've gone from a Doctor who won't eradicate the Daleks to a Doctor who attempts to kill off Davros as a child - even if he did change his mind later, it seemed out-of-character that he had to go back and take a second shot at it. But I'm probably expecting consistency from something that was never that consistent - rather like Kirk, who's a good guy who occasionally threatens to lay waste to planets...
12. Re:is it just me by MMC+Monster · 2015-09-28 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  When he went back, it was to save him. It's just the cliffhanger from the season premiere which made it look like he went back to kill him.
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
13. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  Anyway, shall we use this click-bait article to discuss the new series? I thought that the opening two-parter was pretty good. A bit too much desu-ex as usual, but Davros was portrayed well.
  They seem to have (thankfully) moved on from the dreary nihilistic misery-guts theme of the 2014 series, but that was a fairly pedestrian opening as new Who goes. The first episode was mostly padding with Capaldi putting out more ham than a delicatessen in a wobbly-set medieval tourament ring, and the second episode Michelle Gomez performing five dozen variations on [Scene 1, Ext: Skaro. Clara bizarrely starts trusting Missy. Missy does something evil with a smile.] [Scene 2, Ext: Cave entrance. Clara bizarrely starts trusting Missy. Missy does something evil with a smile.] [Scene 3, Tunnel. Clara bizarrely starts trusting Missy. Missy does something evil with a smile] ... The key plot of the episode meanwhile being that whereas Davros thought he'd conned the Doctor with his scenery-chewing melodramatic despair and bonding with his enemy, in fact the Doctor had conned Davros with his scenery-chewing melodramatic sympathy and bonding with his enemy.
  And by the way just let me thwack you over the head with the word HYBRID at this point. Now, what was I saying... that's right, normally, they'd have hidden a few subtle clues in the episode to set up the big bad for the series [HYBRID! THWACK THWACK THWACK!] I wonder why they didn't do that this time. [By the way, HYBRID!]
  It still feels as if Moffatt is writing for Matt Smith and Capaldi just doesn't quite get it right. Capaldi always seems like a serious actor trying to play zany ... whereas Smith could just do mad-as-bats naturally. And that Clara is essentially Amy without the attitude -- which seems to have left a largely empty vessel.
14. Re: is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  You are talking in terms of copyright. The article is talking about trademark. Those are almost entirely unrelated things.
15. Re:is it just me by TechyImmigrant · 2015-09-28 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  >In the 50's, there used to be police call boxes. Also in the 50's, the TARDIS was a police call box. The police have since stopped using those boxes.
  I remember seeing actual police call boxes in the 70s. Maybe it just took them over 20 years to remove them.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
16. Re:is it just me by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-28 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Trust me, it's not just you. I think this post gave me brain cancer.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
17. Re:is it just me by gstoddart · 2015-09-28 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I've only ever seen them on TV ... don't take my summary to be a rigorous history of the use of police call boxes in the UK, just a summary of the article which described it in context of trademark.
  The Met got told they don't have trademark. BBC is trying to say they now have the trademark because nobody uses that image for pretty much anything else.
  Which then makes the prospect of an actual historical piece running afoul of trademark by saying you can't depict real things any more ... and that would be very odd indeed. I mean, if you had a piece set in the 50's, wouldn't you expect to see some form of these around?
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
18. Re:is it just me by TechyImmigrant · 2015-09-28 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  The one I remember in particular was in Coed Rhedyn, so it's probably still there. Taking over 60 years to clear an eyesore is nothing the the local council.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
19. Re:is it just me by nanoflower · 2015-09-28 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  He did attempt to kill him in the first case. Not directly but by letting Davros stay in the hand mine field where he had no chance of getting out alive without help. That's out of character with what we've seen from the Doctor since the child Davros had done nothing wrong at that point.
20. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  The whole point of that post is shameless advertising of "IP monitoring service" by their authors.
21. Re:is it just me by AmiMoJo · 2015-09-28 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Tom Baker's Doctor got as far as holding the means to eradicate the Daleks in his hands before deciding not to do it. He's been there before.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
22. Re:is it just me by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  A bit too much desu-ex
  Is "too much desu-ex" when you split up with a girl because she's going OTT with the old desu?
23. Re:is it just me by richy+freeway · 2015-09-28 08:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There's one not far from me, recently installed.
  http://www.bournemouthecho.co....
24. Re:is it just me by Lemming+Mark · 2015-09-28 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  I guess what felt weird to me was that he had to learn a lesson and then back - that he didn't do the "right" (or at least consistent with not destroying the Daleks either) thing straight off. But the Doctor who didn't destroy the Daleks was hundreds of years younger, maybe this one just needed that nudge in the right direction!
25. Re: is it just me by TWX · 2015-09-28 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Trouble is, they're wanting to trademark it so that they can prevent people from making toys. Having actually built a Police Box to 85% scale with full detail including light-up signs and a strobing light as a shed around my upright air compressor, I can tell you that even if there is demand for Police Boxes, the difficulty in building them properly where they'd be worth buying/selling is so high and the material costs are so high that manufacturers would have to charge five figures to make it profitable if it's sufficiently detailed. That means they're seeking trademark to prevent the sale of toys and scale models, not to prevent the sale of actual to-size or close-to-size real things.
  
  I can see them being able to prohibit the sale of Police Boxes that are labelled "TARDIS" or are advertised with "Doctor Who" out of Trademark, but beyond that they shouldn't be able to restrict the sale of Police Boxes because they copied someone else's existing design.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
26. Re:is it just me by nogginthenog · 2015-09-28 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  There's one outside Earls Court tube station in London: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/... You can go inside too.
27. Re:is it just me by jabuzz · 2015-09-28 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with that is there are blue police boxes all over the United Kingdom. Her for example is one in Glasgow which is several hundred miles/km from London and nothing to do with the Met.
  https://www.google.co.uk/maps/...
  Basically the BBC are being dicks.
Why wait until now? by beschra · 2015-09-28 01:44 · Score: 1

It seem like this would have been worked out years ago.

--
It is unwise to ascribe motive
1. Re:Why wait until now? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  It seem like this would have been worked out years ago.
  They still can't find one that's bigger on the inside!
2. Re:Why wait until now? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  It was actually worked out years from now.
Wait, what? by tgibson · 2015-09-28 01:51 · Score: 2

The BBC applied for a trademark. The BBC defeated the police in the past. Now it's BBC's turn. Me thinks the article description needs a sonic screwdriver.
1. Re:Wait, what? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2015-09-28 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Sonic won't be enough. They'll need Mario, too!
2. Re:Wait, what? by ChunderDownunder · 2015-09-28 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you mean sonic sunglasses?
Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 01:53 · Score: 0

So you can register anyoneâ(TM)s anything and get away with it?
1. Re:Hmmm by OolimPhon · 2015-09-28 02:14 · Score: 2
  
  Most American corporations seem to think you can.
Now it can never be fixed by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2015-09-28 01:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pretty Young Thing #137: Why does the TARDIS look like that?
The Doctor: It has a chameleon circuit to blend into the local environment, but mine got stuck on a trademarked image from the year 2015-ish.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
What's next, toilet plungers? by NotDrWho · 2015-09-28 02:06 · Score: 3, Funny

"Is that a toilet plunger in that logo, mister?"
"Yeah, we're a plumbing company"
"Sorry, but that makes it look too much like a Dalek"
"A what?"
"ARREST THIS MAN!"

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
1. Re:What's next, toilet plungers? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  What about exterminators? Won't someone think of the exterminators???
So why doesnt the Doctor by rossdee · 2015-09-28 02:25 · Score: 3, Funny

fix the chameleon circuit and turn it into a Port-a-Loo
It would be less conspicuous on Earth at least.
1. Re:So why doesnt the Doctor by GungaDan · 2015-09-28 05:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  A turd-is? Brilliant!
  
  --
  Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
2. Re:So why doesnt the Doctor by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  Because those are already trademarked.
3. Re:So why doesnt the Doctor by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  Because he has tried a few times in the past. But the TARDIS doesn't want to change that much.
4. Re:So why doesnt the Doctor by newcastlejon · 2015-09-28 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  A turd-is? Brilliant!
  Been done.
  White wee-wee, and so on.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
and they're successful by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 03:26 · Score: 0

M$ trademarked Windows (TM).
1. Re:and they're successful by KGIII · 2015-09-28 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  For a fairly narrow subset of uses, yes. So isn't Linux I believe. You can call all sorts of shit Windows, just not your operating system. I should find one of those graphics overlay companies and have them make a design up that has the Windows 10 logo on it. I don't generally use Windows and haven't used Windows 10 at all but it would be amusing.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
2. Re:and they're successful by Coren22 · 2015-09-28 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  AC is incorrect, the trademark is for Microsoft Windows. Windows and Office are too generic, so both are proceeded by Microsoft.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
3. Re:and they're successful by KGIII · 2015-09-28 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  So it needs the "Microsoft" in order to qualify as a trademark violation?
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
4. Re:and they're successful by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 12:35 · Score: 0
  
  AC is incorrect, the trademark is for Microsoft Windows.
  Please please PLEASE limit your responses to APK. You and all of the rest of us will be the better for it.
  Thanks in advance!
5. Re:and they're successful by Coren22 · 2015-09-29 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  I have limited my responses to APK, I stopped responding when I realized he was more interested in winning an argument than in understanding what was being said. He doesn't care about security, only his win loss score. It isn't worth it to talk to him anymore as he doesn't even understand the basics of security, nor how to read English.
  When APK is open to understanding security, I will be here waiting to explain it to him yet again, but for now, why bother, I tire of tilting at windmills.
  I have already won the arguments, which is proven out by his need to post on everything I post. He only does that when he has already lost the argument. He has this desire to act schizophrenic and agree with himself repeatedly rather than even considering another point of view, which comes from considerable experience in the field.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:BBC=Brainless Bumbling Cock-suckers by KGIII · 2015-09-28 04:09 · Score: 0

This, folks, is why you should adhere to the prescribed medication schedule.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:BBC=Brainless Bumbling Cock-suckers by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2015-09-28 04:31 · Score: 1

The fuckwads at the Brainless Bumbling Cock-suckers have no fucking right to get a fucking trademark on something so fucking generic. Naturally they would because, after all, they created the shittiest show of all time, Doctor Poop and the British are so fucking stupid is it any wonder only fucktarded USian and British sheeple watch it.
I'm not a Dr Who fan (I think it's a pretty silly show, to be honest) but if others like it, more power to them. They probably don't like some of the stuff I like, and that's fine with me too.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Attempting to trademark a decoration name by hackwrench · 2015-09-28 05:18 · Score: 1

No, trademarks that describe the product that the trademark covers should be disallowed, although Betty Boop got allowed as a trademark, but once it fell out of copyright the trade- Actually reviewing the trademark situation for Betty Boop, I found it more confusing than I initially thought, and the Wikipedia article steers clear of it, but a link to a story about it is http://www.seattlecopyrightwat...
Methinks someone's stoned by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 05:21 · Score: 0

Or the "journalist" is writing from the future, in code, knowing only the Doctor could decipher the message, change the past and turn the headline into something that wasn't just drivel.
Anonymous Coward!! by journeylantern · 2015-09-28 05:25 · Score: 1

Laughing my ass off! Nope, just finding it impossible to login through my news aggregate app. So I pasted the link into chrome and logged in. Yes, still crap journalism.
Re:Parent poster is racist by KGIII · 2015-09-28 05:57 · Score: 1

You can do better than that. If you're going to attempt to appear psychotic then you can do much better. Also, it's the internet. You can say 'shit' if you want to. No need to call him Dr. Poop. Also, I'm guessing they have people of varied races on the show. I've never seen it. I suspect you have, however. Actually, I haven't seen it since it was the really old episodes that were syndicated and played on PBS but that was many years ago.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Coren22 = incorrect & "eats his words" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 08:28 · Score: 0

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
See subject & that quote from you (& a REAL security pro agrees hosts = good security http://it.slashdot.org/comment... ).

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Tell us another one, hypocrite - You use admin priv yourself & how else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows, hmmm?
ANSWER:
I have to do it that way, to protect AND speed up users plus make their connections online more reliable!
(The latter of which also functions to make users faster than adblocking alone, by resolving host-domain names to IP address from hosts cached in RAM locally - far faster than calling out to remote DNS & less complex + less overheads ridden vs. locally installed DNS (less power, & FAR LESS if done on a separate machine)).
APK
P.S.=> LMAO - "EAT YOUR WORDS" you hypocritical STUPID little technically incompetent troll wannabe security guru, lol... apk
Re:BBC=Brainless Bumbling Cock-suckers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-28 08:37 · Score: 0

Yes, I agree. More power to people who like shitty things. That's fine with me too.

None of which is contrary to calling out shitty things as shitty. Or unequivocally inferior.

That said, I don't particularly think "Dr Who" is shitty. I do think it's overrated, definitely, but that doesn't equate to Bad.

-AC.Falos
Coren22 the hypocrite noob "eats his words" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-29 03:48 · Score: 0

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Tell us another one, hypocrite - You admitted using admin priv yourself & how else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows, hmmm?
ANSWER:
I have to do it that way, to protect AND speed up users plus make their connections online more reliable!
(The latter of which also functions to make users faster than adblocking alone, by resolving host-domain names to IP address from hosts cached in RAM locally - far faster than calling out to remote DNS & less complex + less overheads ridden vs. locally installed DNS (less power, & FAR LESS if done on a separate machine)).
---
Aha! What's this Coren22 admits?

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
See subject & BOTH quotes from you contradicting yourself!
(& a REAL security pro, Aryeh Goretsky of NOD32/ESET agrees hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... ).
APK
P.S.=> LMAO - "EAT YOUR WORDS" you hypocritical STUPID little technically incompetent troll wannabe security guru, lol - you're constantly trolling me, your post history shows it - NOW, you're getting a DOSE OF YOUR OWN MEDICINE (How's it taste? Better than how "eating your words" does I bet!)
... apk
1. Re:Coren22 the hypocrite noob "eats his words" by Coren22 · 2015-09-29 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Again, you have proven me right. You are more concerned with winning than understanding what is being said. You ad hominem attack, and claim things that weren't said in order to win the argument, you haven't even bothered to try to understand what is being said.
  You still don't even understand basic security, but feel free to keep fellating yourself to feel superior to all even though you know nothing of the subject.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
2. Re:Coren22 the hypocrite noob "eats his words" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-29 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Coren22 you shouldn't have trolled a better in apk. He completely destroyed you http://slashdot.org/comments.p... letting you destroy yourself.
3. Re:Coren22 the hypocrite noob "eats his words" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-29 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Coren22 you prove yourself wrong saying apk said things that you didn't say? You're quoted in them! You also do nothing for security. Apk does http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and proved you didn't even know basics of networking on migrating a hosts file across an enterprise for protection which many security pros agree is good security from reputable professional people in the field.
You won? What a laugh! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-29 03:53 · Score: 0

NOD32 ESET devs say hosts = good security (You don't but you're nobody). They're real pros in security. You use admin priv yourself yet you bitch apk uses it yet you admit it has to be that way. Get over it Coren22. You lost badly being a fucking hypocrite and a noobie wannabe.
Noob, REAL security pros prove you wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-29 05:22 · Score: 0

Aryeh Goretsky of NOD32/ESET agrees hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS (Symantec Division) does the same -> Resurrecting the Killfile FROM -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts division does BOTH hosting & recommending my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
* HOW MANY MORE TIMES & HOW MANY MORE REAL SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUT OF YOU SOME MORE?
---
Those security pros?
They INCLUDE ME too you noobie rookie obvious dimwit as I work with those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a fairly regular basis!
Plus, as I've had to do it professionally for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer professionally since 1994 (with ME even having to show you HOW to migrate a hosts file across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
(I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES + WARES TO DO IT probably LONGER THAN YOUR NOOB ASS HAS BEEN ALIVE possible!)
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - A nobody like YOU says "hosts=bad" & bitches about using admin privelege (first) to UPDATE them vs. threats online:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Tell us another one, hypocrite - You admitted using admin priv yourself & how else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows, hmmm?
THEN YOU TURNED AROUND & ADMITTED I HAD TO DO IT THAT WAY

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
Since you're MENIAL ASS limited in skills self doesn't code (& didn't even KNOW that much)... apk
1. Re:Noob, REAL security pros prove you wrong by Coren22 · 2015-09-29 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
2. Re:Noob, REAL security pros prove you wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-29 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  Coren22 everyone knows you troll apk on hosts. Not saying so much now are you after http://slashdot.org/comments.p... eh?
Coren22 completely CRUSHED & dominated! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-29 06:16 · Score: 0

Aryeh Goretsky of NOD32/ESET agrees hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS (Symantec Division) does the same -> Resurrecting the Killfile FROM -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts division does BOTH hosting & recommending my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
---
* HOW MANY MORE TIMES & HOW MANY MORE REAL SECURITY PROS DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUT OF YOU SOME MORE?
---
Those security pros?
They INCLUDE ME too you noobie rookie obvious dimwit as I work with those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a fairly regular basis!
I've had to do it professionally for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer professionally since 1994 (with ME even having to show you HOW to migrate a hosts file across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
(I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES + WARES TO DO IT probably LONGER THAN YOUR NOOB ASS HAS BEEN ALIVE possibly EVEN BEING PAID (professional status right here) FOR IT -> http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... )
APK
P.S.=> Lastly - A nobody like YOU says "hosts=bad" & bitches about using admin privelege (first) to UPDATE them vs. threats online:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)
Tell us another one, hypocrite - You admitted using admin priv yourself & how else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows, hmmm?
YOU ADMITTED I HAD TO DO IT THAT WAY

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)
Since you're MENIAL ASS limited in skills self doesn't code (& didn't even KNOW that much)... apk