AdBlock Plus To Introduce Independent Board To Oversee Acceptable Ads Program

Acceptable ads? by xenotransplant · 2015-09-30 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

What are those?

Re:Acceptable ads? by gstoddart · 2015-09-30 07:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'll tell you my definition of them: If the host in question serves the ad from its own servers, and doesn't use any Javascript or Flash.
Anything which just links to external ad companies, analytics companies, and expects to run code on my machine is blocked. Because expecting me to trust code execution from a 3rd party is simply not happening.
If I can't do that, then I'll pretty much block every form of ads I can.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Acceptable ads? by TWX · 2015-09-30 07:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm willing to accept a couple of lines of small text on a page within a box labelled that it's an ad.

Come to think of it, had we not had ads with audio, ads that popped-up, ads that popped-under, ads that moved around on the screen to avoid the cursor, ads that spawned more ads, ads that hijacked DNS, ads that hijacked Windows Socket Services, I probably would have even been okay with a small number of appropriately-positioned graphical ads, basically the equivalent of a magazine or newspaper's ad content but with the potential for simple animated GIFs. Early on the advertisers fooled me once, I will not give them the opportunity to fool me again, as ad-blocking software, javascript-blocking software, and flash-blocking software will forever be used on any and all browsers that I run.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Acceptable ads? by xenotransplant · 2015-09-30 07:19 · Score: 2

The worst type of ads, in my unsolicited opinion, are the download buttons that are located adjacent to each other. These are the ones that cause most of my customers their headaches. Of course telling them to stop downloading software from dubious sources is not an option, as the customer is never, ever, ever, ever, ever wrong.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:25 · Score: 0

Exactly. I have zero sympathy for ad apologists.
There are endless ways to get sponsors if you actually want to. But yeah, not happening because that would require the sites to be producing quality content and that's a fucking miracle on the Internet these days.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Wootery · 2015-09-30 07:30 · Score: 1

If the host in question serves the ad from its own servers, and doesn't use any Javascript or Flash.
Nowhere near strict enough.
Is the advert obscene? Does it use obnoxious flashing colours?
Re:Acceptable ads? by TWX · 2015-09-30 07:42 · Score: 2

Does the customer have to pay monetarily, or at least through downtime, for their error?

At least make 'em pay through equipment unavailability while it's fixed. Take the gear away from the customer site to fix it without providing a loaner, and attribute the problem to user-infected malware brought down from the world wide web as the problem while it's being serviced on the bench. They may get mad, but if it's documented that they shot themselves in the foot even if accidentally then maybe they'll learn not to do that.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Acceptable ads? by slacka · 2015-09-30 08:04 · Score: 1

Exactly, just compare Weather Underground to reddit without an ad-blocker. Reddit is actually so unobtrusive, that I have whitelisted them for the past year.
To all these slashdotters flipping out about "acceptable ads", I have a question for you. How many of you pay for that content you're using ad blockers on? All the none-user generated content costs money and bandwidth always costs money. If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place. I'm really happy I have the option to use ABP with unobtrusive allowed. Just like it felt better to watch Game of thrones on HBO-Go then pirating it like I had to for the first few seasons.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 08:14 · Score: 0

But...but...but...my regurgitation of some shitty top 10 list that uses next pages for each item to drive up ad impressions is totally amazing content!!
- Average web site owner
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 08:22 · Score: 0

Pretty much everyone is going to have their own interpretation of this. For me, acceptable ads are text links based on current context (for example search I just made) or categories I've voluntarily accepted seeing ads about. Even text links aren't okay if they are based on spying my habits and interests.
Re:Acceptable ads? by xenotransplant · 2015-09-30 08:28 · Score: 1

I like your style.
Re:Acceptable ads? by tepples · 2015-09-30 08:28 · Score: 1

No Flash Player I'll agree with. But would you really prefer to waste your valuable bandwidth on a prerendered silent video ad when a vector animated ad rendered to a canvas using JavaScript on the client can be sent with far fewer bytes of your monthly cap?
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 08:33 · Score: 0

The usual excuse for obscene/obnoxious ads is "I have no control over them, our 3rd party advertising partner is hosting the ad". If the site owner is hosting it, then it's their decision to include ads of that nature and my decision to quit going to their site.
Re:Acceptable ads? by rainmaestro · 2015-09-30 08:40 · Score: 4, Informative

How many ad-containing sites give you the OPTION to pay for the content? That's the real question. I'm perfectly happy to toss a few bucks to the site if I get value from their content, but damn few even give me the option. It is either fund them through dodgy third-party ads or don't support them at all. And when those are my choices, sorry, no funding.
Re:Acceptable ads? by hairyfeet · 2015-09-30 08:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Exactly. During the early days most of us had NO problem with ads because they weren't being assholes. They had simple .txt, maybe a .jpg or if they wanted to be fancy a .gif, and since it was first party it was actually relevant to the site and usually the site host had good experiences shopping there.....then came the MBAs, Masters of Being Assholes.
First came the pop ups, then came the ads blocking content, then came loud as hell sound blaring, then Java (in fact the reason I originally started advising customers to remove Java was early Java ads) and then came Flash, now look at what we have...want to make a PC so safe you can remove the AV and be just fine? Block ALL ads and watch infections disappear. Last figures I saw had malware ads causing something like 96 out of every 100 infections, nothing else came close.
And to all those that say "we need ads to have the web, boo hoo" I'll say the exact same thing I said to Jim Sterling that got me banned from The Escapist when he was being their apologist, I produced links showing how many times The Escapist had shown malware ads and said..."are you gonna be responsible for the damage you cause? Are you gonna pay to clean their PCs, have a watch put on their CC numbers? Gonna pay them for the lost hours dealing with resetting passwords and cleaning up the messes YOU CAUSED with your ads?" You want to be treated like REAL journalists and stores? Fine and dandy because they pay when they are hacked sometimes to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars like TJ Maxx when their system got hacked.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too ad pushers, either you step up to the plate and claim responsibility and pay for the damages when YOUR ADS cause damage or you have a heaping cup of STFU when users do the only smart and sensible thing and block the largest source of malware their PCs can possibly see.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 09:14 · Score: 0

The ones that the advertisers BRIBE the AdBlock Plus people to allow past. Going to be removing that one off of my browser now. Not sure WHAT I'll run, but it sure as HELL isn't them now.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 10:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Because expecting me to trust code execution from a 3rd party is simply not happening.
This is an interesting intersection of trust issues.
You don't trust a 3rd party. Fair enough.
But the 3rd party doesn't trust the publisher either. Advertisers can't trust publishers to report how many times an ad was viewed, because the publisher has a very strong incentive to "cheat" and claim more ad impressions than really occurred. This is why the advertisers absolutely insist that the ads be delivered from a 3rd party server under their control so that they can trust it to report the correct metrics.
In fact, it's this lack of trust that makes ad blockers possible at all. Ad blockers have an easy job: they simply blacklist the domain names of known ad servers. But if the publishers served the ads directly from their own server, then ad blockers would have to solve the brutally difficult AI problem of figuring out the difference between "content" and "ads" that are both intermixed inside one HTTP response.
The publishers would love to serve the ads from their own servers, just as you want. But that's never going to happen, because the advertisers can't trust the publishers to do that. Be very thankful for that lack of trust, because that's the only thing that makes ad blockers possible, which, in turn, is the only thing that makes the Web tolerable.
Re:Acceptable ads? by mrchaotica · 2015-09-30 10:09 · Score: 1

All the none-user generated content costs money and bandwidth always costs money. If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.
Yes, an Internet where people would host what they create themselves or via distributed technologies like bittorrent or freenet (and demand symmetrical connections because of it), where only stuff worthwhile enough to be crowdfunded would survive, where ad-infested reposted shit on content farms would no longer be able to obscure primary sources... it would be glorious!

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Acceptable ads? by idbeholda · 2015-09-30 10:25 · Score: 1

It's just another fancy phrase for "Pay To Play". Further bets placed on the ads being mostly written in flash.
Re:Acceptable ads? by david_thornley · 2015-09-30 10:39 · Score: 2

Depends. Am I on my laptop or desktop, which are hooked into an uncapped 40Mb/s fiber, or on my phone, which does have limits on its cellular data consumption? My answer would be different between the two.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Acceptable ads? by david_thornley · 2015-09-30 10:48 · Score: 1

My answer:
For my desktop and laptop at home, an acceptable ad is one that doesn't try to play audio without permission, isn't too garish, doesn't open its own windows or tabs, allows me to work or whatever normally, and has some method for me to be sure it doesn't contain malware.
For my phone, an acceptable ad is something that lets me use the site I'm at. It will not permanently obscure part of an already small screen, it will not make it difficult to scroll without touching an ad that will take me to another site, it will not take me out of the browser, it will not play audio without permission, and won't get me in trouble if I see it at work. Oh, and I can be sure it isn't carrying malware.
Personally, I don't think this is too much to ask, and I'm perfectly willing to see those ads. I somewhat regret installing adblockers, but I really don't feel like I had much of a choice.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Acceptable ads? by epyT-R · 2015-09-30 10:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

I pay for my bandwidth. Why should I have to subsidize theirs with mine?
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 11:05 · Score: 0

Sorry but how do you figure that out ? I pay for my own band width yet if the advert is pulled from a 3rd party server Its not costing the 'contents provider' any bandwidth expense!
Re:Acceptable ads? by saward · 2015-09-30 12:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

As you say, 'damn few' do, but some do. Some offer the option to subscribe, or pay a once off fee to remove those ads. My concerns in those cases are that it means remembering a separate account for each such website, signing into those websites each time my session expires in order to remove the ads, and paying a significant sum of money if I do it on too many sites.
That's why I've started webpass.io, a service that offers websites an easy way to offer the option to pay for content, but that avoids these extra kinds of concerns.
Re:Acceptable ads? by tepples · 2015-09-30 13:35 · Score: 1

Am I on my laptop or desktop, which are hooked into an uncapped 40Mb/s fiber, or on my phone, which does have limits on its cellular data consumption? My answer would be different between the two.
3. Or you're on your laptop tethered to your phone or a MiFi device while a passenger in a vehicle.
4. Or you're living in a rural area outside of cable and DSL availability, and the only service options are satellite and fixed cellular.
5. Or you're living in urban Seattle whose right-of-way red tape has blocked attempts to deploy wired broadband, and the only service options are satellite and fixed cellular.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Panoptes · 2015-09-30 13:36 · Score: 1

'Acceptable ads' is an oxymoron.
Re:Acceptable ads? by pete6677 · 2015-09-30 13:42 · Score: 1

Considering how much of the modern internet consists of worthless clickbait sites, expecting people to pay for those is asking an awful lot. So those sites either go bankrupt or survive by using abusive advertising.
Re:Acceptable ads? by pete6677 · 2015-09-30 13:43 · Score: 1

There is no broadband in downtown Seattle?
Re:Acceptable ads? by tnk1 · 2015-09-30 13:50 · Score: 1

Because if you don't, they turn off their web site and do whatever it is that you do for a living to pay for their bandwidth. Depending on the site, you may or may not care, but chances are, you care about some of them.
Re:Acceptable ads? by tepples · 2015-09-30 14:00 · Score: 1

There is no broadband in downtown Seattle?
Suburbs of Seattle have broadband. But as I understand it, Seattle proper requires a supermajority of landowners in a neighborhood to agree to install a utility, and failure to cast a vote is counted as an oppose vote. See also this thread in a story about Netflix.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 14:21 · Score: 0

There is no such thing as an acceptable ad!
Re: Acceptable ads? by HappyDrgn · 2015-09-30 15:45 · Score: 1

Man, most startup ideas are pretty sketch, but yours ain't all that bad. Good on you for finding an actual problem to solve.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Dutch+Gun · 2015-09-30 16:56 · Score: 1

Yep, for me the issue is simply one of safety. I currently don't block ads in particular, but I refuse to allow scripting, which actually ends up blocking most of them as a side-effect. Just the other day Forbes.com was found to be serving ads that were trying to infect visitors through a Flash vulnerability, which of course was launched via scripting.
I understand that using no-script is probably too high a burden for most users, and honestly, it's a bit of a pain even for me. I'm considering using uBlock Origin instead of noscript. That will kill most advertisement that I'm currently fine with viewing. I'm not likely to grant exceptions, because that will mean turning scripting on for remote, untrusted sites.
Sorry advertisers and webmasters. You guys are pulling shit from literally dozens and dozens of different domains, and you have NO idea if that code is actually safe to execute on my machine or not. But it's profitable, so you don't care. Enough is enough. If you don't curb the ability for advertising agencies to run arbitrary code on my machine, I'm not going to let you serve ANY ads to me, period. These ad agents are performing real-time bidding, followed by redirection after redirection, so no one ever really knows when or where malware will come from. In short, safety can't be guaranteed. Not even close.

--
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Mryll · 2015-09-30 17:49 · Score: 1

They blew it when they decided to act like they're more clever than the users. They declared war and it's on. Advertising is not a two way street for me. I'll give my information feedback in some other way.
Re: Acceptable ads? by mister_playboy · 2015-09-30 18:24 · Score: 1

Meh... Flattr has been around since 2010.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 19:11 · Score: 0

Well - too bad then...
Better loose some sites than be bombarded with adds. If the choice is to be overwhelmed by adds or have less amount of interesting sites, my choice is for the latter. I can remember the time there was an internet almost without adds, and that was not that bad at all...
Re:Acceptable ads? by Aighearach · 2015-09-30 19:28 · Score: 1

All the none-user generated content costs money and bandwidth always costs money. If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.
Yes, an Internet where people would host what they create themselves or via distributed technologies like bittorrent or freenet (and demand symmetrical connections because of it), where only stuff worthwhile enough to be crowdfunded would survive, where ad-infested reposted shit on content farms would no longer be able to obscure primary sources... it would be glorious!
My goodness, it would be like somebody invented a time machine back to the Good Ol' Days, when the information glut was nearly half information. Now most of the information hides behind ten pages of clicky infotainment.
Re:Acceptable ads? by jellomizer · 2015-09-30 20:52 · Score: 1

So you just want to steal from people who operate and maintain your favorite sites.
Or do you make a list of sites that you regulatory visit and send them a check for thanks for running?
For me ad blocking is about computing safety as a bad add posed as a legit link can lead to a system security or performance problem that eats up my battery life.
Good ads I don't have issues. I know it is an ad it isn't slowing my system, advertising a legit product or service. And the money from these ads pay for the site information which I value.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re: Acceptable ads? by saward · 2015-09-30 21:50 · Score: 1

Thanks! I'm glad you think so :)
Re:Acceptable ads? by vakuona · 2015-09-30 22:14 · Score: 1

It's not costing them any bandwidth. It's costing them actual money though, you know, dollars and cents.
Re:Acceptable ads? by AmiMoJo · 2015-10-01 00:14 · Score: 1

Your system is useless I'm afraid. It needs a browser plug-in, and even if I was willing to trust your code most mobile browsers don't support plug-ins anyway. Mobile is the platform where I want to avoid ads the most.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Acceptable ads? by GuB-42 · 2015-10-01 02:01 · Score: 1

So, for you, ads on major services from the likes of Google, Microsoft and Amazon are acceptable where small sites that don't have the resources to run their own ad service can go fuck themselves?
The "own server" criteria is effective because it can catch a lot of ads, but "own server" ads are not better, just harder to block.
If external site blocking becomes ubiquitous, the obvious response would be to make the things happen behind the scenes, where the server gets the ad from the external company and relay it to you while sending back tracking data in return. This would make to harder to distinguish ads vs content and would make tracking almost impossible to prevent. It would also make things technically harder because it would add workload to the webmaster's servers and ad providers would have to take measures to make accurate measurements and prevent cheating (probably by tracking more).
Re:Acceptable ads? by saward · 2015-10-01 02:18 · Score: 1

Source code for plugins is hard to hide, so you should be able to take a look yourself and see what it does. But the information we send is outlined in the privacy policy as well. You are right that mobile is a very important platform, but it is also more challenging (particularly on iOS). An Android Firefox plugin is in the works, and we'll keep an eye on ways to make it available for other platforms and browsers.
Re:Acceptable ads? by FlexPlexico · 2015-10-01 02:20 · Score: 1

I thought ads that get served from the same domain as the website you're visiting couldn't possibly be picked up by AdBlock? (and I do know of a few websites off the top of my head that circumvent ad-blocking simply by serving un-targeted, static ads)

Is there some kind of deep inspection going on within AdBlock, because I thought it was literally just a list of blacklisted domains that are known to serve ads?
Re:Acceptable ads? by JohnFen · 2015-10-01 02:46 · Score: 1

How many of you pay for that content you're using ad blockers on?
I do, for the few sites that have a mechanism that lets me. Not all the sites (since I block all ads all the time no matter what site is serving them up), but the ones that I go to regularly.

If everyone blocked 100% of ads, the Internet would be a very different place.
Indeed. I remember when the internet had almost no ads at all on it, and it was a very different place. A very better place.
Re:Acceptable ads? by JohnFen · 2015-10-01 02:48 · Score: 1

My concerns in those cases are that it means remembering a separate account for each such website, signing into those websites each time my session expires in order to remove the ads
That's no problem. Use an ad-blocker, then you don't have to log in.
Re:Acceptable ads? by JohnFen · 2015-10-01 02:50 · Score: 1

I don't care what technique is used to accomplish it, animated ads are automatically objectionable.
Re:Acceptable ads? by JohnFen · 2015-10-01 02:53 · Score: 1

(and I do know of a few websites off the top of my head that circumvent ad-blocking simply by serving un-targeted, static ads)
If by "untargeted" you mean ads that don't track you, then those are exactly the sort of ads that are perfectly fine with me anyway.
Re:Acceptable ads? by FlexPlexico · 2015-10-01 03:18 · Score: 1

They don't track anything specific about you, just like billboards you can see on the street, serving the exact same content to everyone (maybe regularly cycling through a predefined list).

They're perfectly acceptable to me as well (and I wish more webmasters would head in that direction), but my point was that AdBlock creators don't need to *do* anything to classify them as "acceptable" since they should already slip through unimpeded. GP's dream of seeing ads served from the same domain as the webhost is probably already happening.
Re:Acceptable ads? by tepples · 2015-10-01 03:50 · Score: 1

animated ads are automatically objectionable
They are objectionable yet so common that avoiding them takes sacrifice. How do you configure a web search engine to filter sites using animated ads or requiring script to view the entire page out of results so that you don't end up wasting time visiting eight sites in a row only to have to click the back button?
Re:Acceptable ads? by tnk1 · 2015-10-01 04:19 · Score: 1

Most sites have ads. You'd probably turn off most of the Internet. And then you'd be required to pay for the rest of it.
Re:Acceptable ads? by JohnFen · 2015-10-01 04:25 · Score: 1

How do you configure a web search engine to filter sites using animated ads or requiring script to view the entire page out of results so that you don't end up wasting time visiting eight sites in a row only to have to click the back button?
I don't bother with all of that. I use NoScript. If I encounter a site that doesn't work right, I just move on. If the site is interesting enough that it seems worth the effort and blocks scripts, I'll start enabling specific ones until either the site starts working or it requires scripts from sites I know I will never allow.
I don't think I've ever run across the case you site, of having a long string of sites that don't work. I encounter them in singles, and relatively rarely. But perhaps we frequent different sorts of sites.
Re:Acceptable ads? by antdude · 2015-10-01 07:26 · Score: 1

Bah. Back in Prodigy for DOS says, we had ad banners. A few of them had PC speaker audio! People got pissed. :(

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Acceptable ads? by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 07:42 · Score: 1

Which is BS. In the past people knew what ads they promoted. If they didn't like an ad they would reject it. Celebrities promoting a product knew which product it was. The television show host would know the product and use it by name, "promotional consideration paid for by..." If someone came up to me and offered me $100 to promote their product by wearing a tee-shirt, I'd be damn sure I knew what that product was before agreeing.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 07:46 · Score: 1

If everyone blocked 100% of the ads, the internet would be a very different place. It would also be a very nice place. Stop comparing those who block ads to being pirates. The web sites are perfectly capable of not displaying the content if adblocks are detected. I'd rather prevent malware and stop obnoxious ads. If that means I can't see some of these sites then I am happy to skip them. Likewise, I do not pirate and have never pirated, I would never say "I had to" pirate a show to watch it because if I don't want to pay for it them I will skip it.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 07:52 · Score: 1

Any worthwhile sites? I would give money to BBC news on the web if I were allowed to. The only other sites where I've seen paywalls tend to be magazines, and I'm not interested in those. There are a few sites that I have unblocked from adblock, after they have requested this and I knew they were reasonable sites.
Treat it like NPR or PBS. You can support if you want to but you are not required to. No one calls those who don't send money at the annual pledge break freeloaders or pirates. So that's how most of these sites are run; they don't block the content if the ads don't get served up even though they are capable of it. Or treat like broadcast TV, no one is forced to sit down and endure the insipid advertising, we're allowed to leave the room and with DVRs we are allowed to fast forward and skip the ads, and we certainly don't catch any viruses from watching them.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 07:53 · Score: 1

Advertising is welfare for those lacking worthwhile skills to offer the public.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 07:54 · Score: 1

But then we'd have to endure even more endless Septembers!
Re:Acceptable ads? by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 07:56 · Score: 1

Good. Turn off their website. Nothing of value will be lost, and no one will shed a tear. There are a tiny handful of sites I might consider paying for. Very tiny. If I was forced to stop visiting all sites but those I would do it. Maybe cancel the ISP.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 08:01 · Score: 1

Their ads are costing ME money. Dollars and cents. For the junk mail I get every week, someone other than me has to pay for the post office to deliver it. But for web ads, they are sucking up my bandwidth. Many people are still on dialup as the only thing they can afford, and those ads greatly diminish the quality of browsing the web. People pay overage fees for mobile phones if they exceed their bandwidth limits, and yet many sites have more than half their data coming from advertisements instead of actual content (though I use "content" loosely since the internet has so little of value anymore).
Re:Acceptable ads? by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 08:05 · Score: 1

I don't want either. If a site forces me to have one of those two choices then I will leave that site.
That's not uncommon. I follow a link to a breaking news story and see a blank page. I'll just skip it rather than deal with the tedium of unblocking scripts one by one until something appears. It was probably click bait anyway.
The whole reason I have adblock is because I kept wondering why my fast computer was so slow even though I was idle. Turns out the browser which was on a completely different screen and blocked by other windows was busy animating ads and running scripts, sucking up memory as well.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 08:07 · Score: 1

Avoiding the ads takes no sacrifice at all. Install an ad blocker. Your pages will load faster as well. And then step two, install noscript.
Re:Acceptable ads? by saward · 2015-10-01 13:05 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, nothing like BBC news yet. However, if you sign up and start using our plugin, you won't have to pay anything until sites you visit are partnered. Doing so will help us to convince websites to partner.
Re:Acceptable ads? by tepples · 2015-10-01 13:31 · Score: 1

Avoiding the ads takes no sacrifice at all.
Other than a sacrifice of your time when you discover that several consecutive results from your search engine all produce pages that fail to load without scripts. Or other than a sacrifice of your ability to reply meaningfully to an e-mail message containing a link that a friend shared with you but which fails to load without scripts.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 14:58 · Score: 1

Meh, it's not happening for me. And I know better than to follow links sent to me by my friends.
Re:Acceptable ads? by epyT-R · 2015-10-01 16:39 · Score: 1

If they had any intrinsic value, someone else will take their places fairly quickly. If not, oh well. I'd rather lose the site than clean adnet malware out of my system.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 16:52 · Score: 0

I wouldn't be 'required' to do anything. If it got too expensive to be worthwhile, I would drop the service. The only thing that would change is that 90% of the garbage on the net would disappear. Good riddance.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-02 02:45 · Score: 0

You know, I have to acknowledge your point of view, both as a web user who hates ads (I use ABP on all sites, no "acceptable ads" allowed, and pay for the websites I want to support), and as a webmaster who refuses to use ads on my website, as well as refusing to use any servers other than the ones I directly own or have 100% console access to and refusing to allow any aspect of my website outside of my control, (even though I pull from a number of domain names, they're all mine). What I do is what we need more of. I don't pull third party content, except MAYBE jQuery, if the page uses XHR - that's the only thing I'll ever pull.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-02 02:51 · Score: 0

(same poster) That's the only way to create safety on the web. Honestly, if more people ran their website like I run mine, we'd have a lot less problems with "viruses". And, moreover, if I were to ever serve ads, I'd serve (as seen below) a single, untargeted, static, unanimated image, somewhere in my content (more than likely at the bottom, or maybe even in a link that says something like "Click for ad". Full transparency is my policy.
Re:Acceptable ads? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 07:59 · Score: 0

Everyone says this, but nobody does it.

Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 06:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Accept that!

Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 06:56 · Score: 1

or just uncheck 'allow acceptable ads' in the settings dialog.
Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 06:59 · Score: 0

No committee necessary. AdBlock should just change its name to ADBlockSometimes.
Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by TWX · 2015-09-30 07:05 · Score: 2

I think you forgot to check, "Post Anonymously"...

Still, I appreciate the sentiment, thanks for the chuckle.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:06 · Score: 0

Windows 10 ignores hosts file entries for their telemetry and data collectors.
You may as well give up...
Re: Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:07 · Score: 0

You need some bold text in there.
Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:14 · Score: 1

Windows 10 cannot stop you from blocking their telemetry addresses in your home router. Not to put too fine a point on this, but anyone who values privacy should be using BSD or Linux. Apple and Microsoft are not going to respect the notion of privacy other than in passing.
Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Overzeetop · 2015-09-30 07:14 · Score: 1

I gave up on using hosts - well, pi-hole actually, but the same thing - blocking at the DNS level. Frankly, it's a huge headache to keep up on either blocking all the site you want to block, or constantly having to manually update whitelists to get through when you do want to see that gets axed by the major aggregators (like blocking all of microsoft.com by default), and there are some ads on site I prefer to go to that simply don't get blocked because they're self-served (i.e. Google, Facebook).

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Snufu · 2015-09-30 07:23 · Score: 2

AdBlock Maybe.
AdBlock Uwish.
AdPassed CuzReasons
AdBlock Plus. Now with more Ads!
Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 08:17 · Score: 0

Oh really? When I tell OS X to stop sending spotlight searches out, it actually stops doing it ENTIRELY. When I disable Siri on my iPhone it doesn't send anything to Apple. This is unlike on Windows 10 where all your searches still hit Bing.com even when Cortana is disabled and data is still sent out even when you think you totally disabled sending out telemetry data.
Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 08:19 · Score: 0

Where all your *start menu* searches still hit bing.com, I meant to say.
Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Coren22 · 2015-09-30 09:34 · Score: 1

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. It is amazing that this story hasn't attracted the evil that is APKs shitposting.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 03:41 · Score: 0

HOOOOOOOOOOOOSTS!
Re:Not a concern when you use uBlock Origin by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 08:10 · Score: 1

Not a concern when you stop browsing the web and get back to work. You slackers!

TBD by drinkypoo · 2015-09-30 06:51 · Score: 1

Details of how the board will be formed and appointed have not been disclosed, but Eyeo insists that the entire process -- and the vetting of ads -- will be fully transparent.

Hey, maybe it's true. If not, let's sow their ground with salt.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:TBD by fahrbot-bot · 2015-09-30 07:32 · Score: 1

Eyeo insists that the entire process -- and the vetting of ads -- will be fully transparent.
So... they're going to let everything through - like their software. :-)

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

A Step In The Right Direction by Jawnn · 2015-09-30 06:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Clearly, the profit motive and the obligation to deliver on their product's promise are in conflict for Eyeo, so handing off the chore of deciding "acceptableness" to a third party is a good thing. The proof of course, will be in the pudding. They have yet to disclose how that board will be set up.

Re:A Step In The Right Direction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:01 · Score: 0

They have yet to disclose how that board will be set up.
Next week, bidding opens for the 11 seats on the Acceptable Advertisement Board. Starting bid is $45,000 per year.
Re:A Step In The Right Direction by leonbev · 2015-09-30 07:02 · Score: 2

I'm not sure if anybody other than the user should be deciding what ads are "acceptable" when using an ad blocker. That's why I like the Adblock extension for Chrome. It doesn't have this "acceptable ads default to on" nonsense built into it, and it's run by a lone guy who accepts donations instead of a for-profit software development company.
Re:A Step In The Right Direction by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 17:26 · Score: 0

The short answer: Ublock.

How about if by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 06:51 · Score: 0

I stab out my eyes instead

No. Give the control to the users by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2015-09-30 06:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let the users define using AdBlock protocol what their individual ad acceptance policy is. "No video" "No audio" "Not more than 100% of the bandwidth of payload data." Whatever. Let the users also define keywords like, "Looking for: digital camera, used pick-up truck" "Interested in: traveling, wine, gadgets"

Take it as a browser agent string from the user, or as app setting from the user, and deliver it to the web sites. Let the web sites obey these policies and deliver ads.

Most uses would let unobstrusive ads through. I have had the privilege to block slashdot ads for ages. I never do. Same goes for other sites I support. Give us the control. Not some unelected third party ombudsmen.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:No. Give the control to the users by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:16 · Score: 0

Never going to happen, as long as you mistakenly trust the other side to do what you expect them to do.
Re:No. Give the control to the users by steamraven · 2015-09-30 07:28 · Score: 2

I have had the privilege to block slashdot ads for ages. I never do.

I used to do this too, until ads from Slashdot took up a full CPU and a third of my memory. I would love to support Slashdot ads, but they have to behave.
Re:No. Give the control to the users by aardvarkjoe · 2015-09-30 07:52 · Score: 1

I have had the privilege to block slashdot ads for ages.
We all have, all you have to do is install adblock plus. (Or, now, one of the better adblock plugins). A bonus using external ad blockers: it can block the ads that slashdot's "disable advertising" checkbox doesn't affect.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:No. Give the control to the users by tweak13 · 2015-09-30 08:57 · Score: 1

I also use an ad blocker to get rid of the useless "Video Bytes" and "Slashdot Deals" junk that shows up on the main page. Who needs that checkbox when a real ad blocker can do so much more?
Re:No. Give the control to the users by mjensen · 2015-09-30 09:15 · Score: 1

The main problem with this idea, assuming it could work at all, is classification.
Who/what classifies ads as "No video", "No audio", "digital camera" or such? Nobody wants to spend the time/expense to put classifications on ads, and the classifications are going to be terribly subjective anyway.
Re:No. Give the control to the users by vux984 · 2015-09-30 10:08 · Score: 1

it would be trivial to automate detection of video, audio, animation etc
It would also be possible to block any ad that includes "object" or "iframe" or "script" "blink"...
Black any ad that plays with css positioning etc..
Or go one further, and whitelist; only put adds that use the restricted set of html that a typical forum textbox allows... bold, link, font color, image, etc. And that's IT. If the ad contains anything else, block it.
As for keywords, let the ad companies meta tag their ads. Give them 400 characters, and let them go nuts. Let users report any abuse. If an advertiser is found to be abusing the meta tags... blacklist the entire advertising company.
Re:No. Give the control to the users by ancientt · 2015-09-30 14:08 · Score: 1

Too late.
The genie is out of the bottle. Now consumers are realizing that they don't have to see things they don't want to. In the old days the browser did whatever the site owner wanted, so we got pop-ups and java advertisements and auto playing flash. The internet started out being a place where ideas were conveyed mostly by text because putting a double handful of advertisements would make the page take several minutes to load with a 2400 baud modem. Those websites that tried to put a lot of advertising failed because nobody was willing to wait for them to load. Then Phoenix (look up the history of Firefox if you don't remember it) came out and it didn't run javascript or Flash and it blocked pop-ups and it loaded everything in tabs in a single window and it freakin' took off. As internet connection speed increased across the board for the average consumer, more and more advertising could be loaded in the few seconds it took the page to load. As a result, ads started taking up more bandwidth than content and loading more pop-ups than any consumer was willing to swallow, which in turn made pop-up blocking ever so much more desirable, so much so that eventually all the browsers started supporting it, and then eventually by default.
So the consumers won, as they always do, because whatever gets them the content they want without the stuff they don't gains popularity until it becomes the standard. But consumers wanted javascript and java and Flash and it became standard even in the new Phoenix, next called Firebird, now Firefox. Bandwidth and processing speed continued to rise, allowing yet more advertising to be loaded and new techniques to cause pop-unders and interstitial ads. Add-ons came along to block all advertising as a direct result and Firefox continued to rise, then the same came out for Chrome and even Internet Explorer because with a broadband connection there was no other way to limit the flood of advertising that could be loaded in time consumers were willing to wait for content.
Decent people didn't want to block advertising because they wanted to screw over content providers, but they didn't want to deal with the crap. The technology to force people to see something they didn't want was obliterated because the consumers always win. In a war between people wanting content and advertisers wanting to force unwanted ads, the tides turned so much that every advertiser is being blocked regardless of how respectful or unobnoxious they behave.
We've come the point where advertising has to be insanely pushy to get past the average adblocker. The only ads that work are the ones that are going to be blocked in a few months because they're trying so hard to force themselves on the consumer. The consumer will, eventually, always win anyway. Advertising as the standard way to provide funding for content is dying and the war has gone on too long for the tide to turn now.
I still see and feel sympathy for the indignant content providers who just wanted a fair business trade where some reasonable amount of advertising is acceptable by the consumer. It's too late because the consumer won't ever go back to allowing the obnoxious advertising or incidentally the reasonable content providers. I know, it sucks, because good content is dying as a result.
Eventually, there will be another balance. Some way to fund websites will succeed. Here's hoping it isn't every site requiring its own app.

--
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Re:No. Give the control to the users by nitehawk214 · 2015-09-30 16:35 · Score: 1

Well that is kind of dumb. If I was looking for a pickup truck or a digital camera, I would simply go to google and run a search for those things. Not put them as terms in an app that may or may not bother me with those things while I am busy looking at something else.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:No. Give the control to the users by devslash0 · 2015-09-30 19:14 · Score: 1

The problem with giving control to the users is the same as with democracy. Only a small percentage of people really cares, most will agree to whatever they are presented with and there is too much space for manipulation by specific groups. Also, if anything goes wrong, there is no single person to blame and to ask for a fix. Instead the responsibility disperses among the crowd.

Do not get me wrong though. I am a big free software and freedom supporter. However, I believe that the management of such an important thing as clean internet experience should not be left to the chance and should stay sealed and centralised in a hands of a competent individual. Any form of external control should be explicitly prohibited. This means no 'independent' boards. The moment you give them any power is the moment you start losing your own product. All big companies care about is having they own member on the board and executing what is best for their own business which in case of AdBlock would be truly disastrous.
Re:No. Give the control to the users by Tom · 2015-09-30 20:52 · Score: 1

In principle, yes.
In reality, it would be abused immediately. If we were to implement an "interested in" user-agent header, advertisers would begin collecting them roughly three minutes afterwards, and then tell their clients which to use to reach the largest audience, no matter what it is they are actually advertising.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:No. Give the control to the users by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 03:07 · Score: 0

We all have, all you have to do is install adblock plus.
Unless they decide that /. ads are 'acceptable', then your blocker is rendered worthless.
I've been saying it for a long time- stop trusting AdBlock and other blacklist services. Use a script blocker instead (or in addition to), and you'll block almost all advertising anyhow, and what still shows up will be simple things like static images. You can whitelist what YOU want, in part or in whole.

how about a truly independent board? by originalGMC · 2015-09-30 06:53 · Score: 1

I don't see a reason to use that software. Acceptable or not, if I don't agree with your independent board decision, I still want the advert gone. Ghostery is pretty good, works on android / chrome and even IE on older machines. Great software - and it uses an independent board of 1 to make those acceptable advert decisions. Export my black/white lists just like my favorites when porting to a new machine.

Re:how about a truly independent board? by phantomfive · 2015-09-30 06:59 · Score: 1

I still want the advert gone.
Then set your ad-block pro to block all adverts, including "acceptable." Not a problem.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:how about a truly independent board? by gstoddart · 2015-09-30 07:19 · Score: 1

Right up until they decide that some classes of ads will always bypass the stuff, and then it becomes a problem.
Short answer: don't run one single ad blocked/privacy extension. Run a bunch, block as much crap as you can.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:how about a truly independent board? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:19 · Score: 1

I use both ublock and abp (on different boxes of course). I like the gui better in abp. But for speed ublock is pretty good. They both use the same block lists too.
A few things I do not like about ublock is you can not disable a single item blocking easily (nice simple checkbox in abp). To help tune in a site the way you like it. Its logging page is in some ways better. But logging only works if the tab is open and it is not totally clear which list is doing the blocking. When you have well over 80k in blocking items it can be difficult. I do however like the stats. Nearly 10-15% of the internet is adverts.
Overall I am liking ublock. But there are some rough edges. But the speed bump was nice.
Re:how about a truly independent board? by tepples · 2015-09-30 08:41 · Score: 1

Short answer: don't run one single ad blocked/privacy extension. Run a bunch, block as much crap as you can.
A bunch including a DNS-level tool such as a hosts file manager, correct?

Still waiting for apple to get back to me by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 06:54 · Score: 0

on my refund for Crystal. 6 days now and no reply.

Use uBlock Origin by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 06:54 · Score: 0

It's supposed to be better and more efficient/faster at blocking.

No ads are acceptable... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 06:57 · Score: 0

As long as there is no way for any advertising company to get on that board it might be a good move.
Anyone on the board would need to be kept anonymous so that advertisers couldn't buy their way into the acceptable ad list.

To me, it's a no-brainer - all ads rejected, period.

Malware by phantomfive · 2015-09-30 06:57 · Score: 1

I hope they include malware in their criteria for "acceptable."
There's no major ad network that doesn't serve malware (AFAICT).

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:Malware by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:13 · Score: 0

I hope they include malware in their criteria for "acceptable."
There's no major ad network that doesn't serve malware (AFAICT).
that always depends on how much they need to pay Adblock to let them deliver their malware...
Re:Malware by tepples · 2015-09-30 08:45 · Score: 1

First I'd like to understand how you'd define "malware" or "malicious software", and please explain how a policy including "no SWF objects and no Java applets" would allow malicious software to slip in.
Re:Malware by phantomfive · 2015-09-30 09:31 · Score: 1

explain how a policy including "no SWF objects and no Java applets" would allow malicious software to slip in.
There are javascript exploits.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Malware by tepples · 2015-09-30 13:32 · Score: 1
There are javascript exploits.
But how much risk do they create compared to the following three issues?
- There have also been HTML, CSS, font, and image exploits.
- Browser publishers are responsible for fixing JavaScript exploits. Have these exploits been reported to browser publishers?
- Would you prefer that sites use the <video> tag for animating their ads rather than the often more bandwidth-efficient yet script-dependent <canvas> element?
Re:Malware by phantomfive · 2015-09-30 15:04 · Score: 1

I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Malware by tepples · 2015-10-01 01:16 · Score: 1

My point is that there have been exploits in all parts of a web client stack. Therefore, you have to show how JavaScript exploits pose greater risk than exploits in something else.
Re:Malware by phantomfive · 2015-10-01 03:38 · Score: 1

Why would I have to show that? You asked:

explain how a policy including "no SWF objects and no Java applets" would allow malicious software to slip in.
If that's the only policy you have, then you're going to be vulnerable still, that's pretty clear.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Malware by tepples · 2015-10-01 04:27 · Score: 1

You claim that "no SWF objects and no Java applets" is insufficient. In your opinion, what policy short of disconnecting from the Internet is sufficient to block malicious software and why?
Re:Malware by phantomfive · 2015-10-01 04:34 · Score: 1

If a website allows scripts to be placed on their pages from unknown parties without even looking at the scripts, then it's going to invite malware.
I trust Yahoo.com to not write malware on their own pages (except in rare cases of a rogue programmer or something). I don't trust the ads the show with insufficient vetting.

So basically what I am saying is that they need to do a better job vetting ads.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

So, now I needed by Snotnose · 2015-09-30 07:03 · Score: 1

Ad-block block. sigh.

Re:So, now I needed by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 12:23 · Score: 0

+1 to ublock origin, I dont know why idiots mod AC down.

No ads are acceptable by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:04 · Score: 0

To me no ads are acceptable. I don't want them. I go out of my way to block them. I don't care if your business model is ad supported. That isn't my concern. Plenty of websites have shut down because they couldn't sustain it. The world didn't end. This is a "paradigm shift", right? Adapt or die, right? At least that is what the New Media was bleating about when the web was becoming commercialized.

Re:No ads are acceptable by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:12 · Score: 0

Adapt or die is the solution that needs to be applied to the fossil fuel industry as well.
Re:No ads are acceptable by Ash-Fox · 2015-10-05 00:03 · Score: 1

Adapt or die is the solution that needs to be applied to the fossil fuel industry as well.
They adapted by changing the laws in their favour so they wouldn't die, seems to be working fine to me.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

/me takes a crap on your hosts files by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:06 · Score: 0, Interesting

Your host files are crap and out of date APK. I got pwnt because an IP address in your hosts file took me to some malware site as the hosts were out of date!

Fuck your hosts files APK. Just fuck them.

No acceptable ads by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:09 · Score: 0

An entire business model for online content is based on service ads and backhanded operations.

That model, which has turned the internet to shit, doesn't need to exist. The Web could be used to disseminating information, for example, to support another business model..

We may well be in another bubble waiting to burst any moment as people find out they are not getting their money's worth with the flood of online advertisement.

Re:No acceptable ads by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:28 · Score: 0

This is the best comment on this thread because it gets it all in one.
Somehow there is the notion that if a site places ads, people are obligated to view those ads. Not true. I go to the supermarket and avoid walking down certain aisles. I go to the cinema and ignore most of the previews. I FF through my DVR to avoid commercials. Sites choose to place ads, I choose to ignore them via blocking them. Since ads are now the largest vector for online malware, not blocking them is bad judgement, despite my being a BSD/Linux user. Besides, I dislike the notion that advertisers think they should know who I am and where I browse. I also disallow tracking of any kind via a combination of settings changes and tools. Why not play it safe if you can? The Internet is a hostile place made more hostile by ads and marketers.

Can it get rid of... by 6Yankee · 2015-09-30 07:11 · Score: 1

...this Slashdot Paid Posts crap?

Ad Block Plus has been around for ages by Earthquake+Retrofit · 2015-09-30 07:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why has the mass media finally 'discovered' it? Because Apple. Does this mean that advertisers believe Apple users are suckers?

--
Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018

Re:Ad Block Plus has been around for ages by mccrew · 2015-09-30 07:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why has the mass media finally 'discovered' it? Because Apple.

Yep, because Apple.
I think Apple is more friendly to ad blocking because they are already sucking all the profits out of the mobile ecosystem with device sales, while their chief rival makes approximately zero from device sales and is dependent on advertising revenue. They are trying to leverage their high-value platform to deny revenue to their competitor.

--
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Re:Ad Block Plus has been around for ages by Lunix+Nutcase · 2015-09-30 08:25 · Score: 1

Why has the mass media finally 'discovered' it?

Why do you falsely presume that people have only *just now* discovered it to begin with? Nothing in the summary or in the linked article even remotely said or implied any such thing that AdBlock Plus was something new. But, the fact that Apple finally put in content blocking into iOS has been a major source of news mostly because advertisers have been bawwwing like babies. But that doesn't mean that no one in the media knew about AdBlock Plus.
Re:Ad Block Plus has been around for ages by AmiMoJo · 2015-10-01 00:22 · Score: 1

Seems like a risky game to play, given that their services heavily depend on ad funded sources for data. According to Wikipedia, Siri uses:
- OpenTable, Gayot, CitySearch, BooRah, Yelp, Yahoo Local, Yandex, ReserveTravel, and Localeze for restaurant and business questions and actions;
- Eventful, StubHub, and LiveKick for events and concert information;
- MovieTickets, Rotten Tomatoes, and the New York Times for movie information and reviews;
- Bing Answers, Wolfram Alpha and Evi for factual question answering;[35]
- Bing, Yahoo, and Google for web search.
I guess trying to hurt Google must be worth it to them, which says more about the success of Android than anything else.

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

This just in: by slashdice · 2015-09-30 07:20 · Score: 1

Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, and William Kennedy Smith introduce independent board to oversee Acceptable Rape program.

--
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.

Not a brilliant business model by marcle · 2015-09-30 07:22 · Score: 1

So you've come up with a business model that says you need me to view ads to pay your expenses? Not terribly original as business models go, and most definitely not my problem. Go ahead and block me from your site for refusing to view those ads, I don't have a problem with that. No web site is indispensable.

Wait, you don't want to block me from your web site, you need my page views, but you still want me to feel guilty for blocking ads?

Methinks you haven't thought out that business model very well. Have you tried opening a restaurant where paying for the meal is optional? All you have to do is stand near the exit with a sad face and beg your customers to pay on the way out. Now that one ought to make you a bundle!

While you are making stupid recommendations ... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:23 · Score: 0

Other stupid ideas lists to add to your list of stupid ideas:

[ X ] Why not let the user set a certain pixel size for image ads.

[ X ]Or a checkbox to indicate whether or not animated ads are acceptable.

Short version: people is spend time tweaking stuff in a ads preferences control panel.

[ X ] And you are a stupid person for suggesting it.

It's old skool but I LOL'ed by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:27 · Score: 0

"I'm not sure if anybody other than the user should be deciding what ads are "acceptable"

ROFL

Pro-tip: If you are downloading an ad-blocker, you are not deciding what ads are acceptable.

Ad-Block gets paid by advertisers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:31 · Score: 0

But you probably didn't know this. Some companies pay Ad-Block to be exempt from their blocker. Google is one of those companies.

Your basement dude not-for-profit guy is not going to be in it in for the long haul.

$INSERT_BASEMENT_PROGRAMMER_ADBLOCK$ is not a long-term solution to unobtrusive ads.

They're too tame by joh · 2015-09-30 07:37 · Score: 2

What adblock should do is blocking ALL ads and all tracking religiously (no exceptions, treat every ad or tracker as a bug to fix) and then instead inject own ads they sell. Limit that to one ad per page (none on pages that had no ads to begin with, on pages with only a single ad let this through), small, no tracking at all, no flash, no video, no sound. Deliver ads to devices based on rough location (as determined by the IP address) and the URL of the page, no more personalisation by tracking. Add an opt-in system with an account where users can voluntarily submit preferences for ads to get more relevant ads if they want to.

This would be revolutionary and could help to beat the online advertising business back on track. It would allow less (but more expensive) ads, more page views for websites, less bandwidth waste, and more honest and meaningful targeting. It would be rather a kind of "page sponsoring" than the firehose approach that we have now, but this doesn't have to be bad, for nobody.

I mean, things like trying to trick users into clicking on an ad by accident or devaluing your advertising by drowning it in a flickering sea of crap does neither help the users nor those who advertise or the websites themselves. Online advertising is being ABUSED and all but some scum companies suffer from it. Both websites and advertisers (that is the companies who want to show ads to people they think they have something to sell to) have to organize against that kind of abuse. Websites need to get much, much more selective about what they allow their content to be framed by and if they can't spend that kind of effort on it they have to outsource it.

And yes, someone has to do something drastic or we will never see things changing here, and everyone will suffer just longer from it. There is no real reason for advertising being a too dirty business, it's what made the press and radio and TV affordable and helped countless businesses to stay in business and customers find companies to buy things from.

Re:They're too tame by CanadianMacFan · 2015-09-30 07:54 · Score: 1

What does the website get out of this? Sounds like nothing. You've taken all of their ads away and put yours in which you keep the money. The website isn't getting the money from the ad. The user is going to think if they click on the ad that the website might benefit.
I was thinking that AdBlock might change their model so that they offer a free version that blocks everything except for one standard size ad. It wouldn't be a Flash or JavaScript on. Just a simple image banner ad. AdBlock would get money by offering a paid upgrade which would allow the user to remove that ad. This way at least the website gets a little bit of revenue from the free version.
Re:They're too tame by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 23:34 · Score: 0

> Deliver ads to devices based on rough location (as determined by the IP address) and the URL of the page
You're one of those idiots which makes your pages display in the German language just because I use a proxy in Germany aren't you ?
Get a clue.

It OGRE. ABP is Kill by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:43 · Score: 0

ABP is Kill. Within 12-24 months the company will effectively be selling "ad access" to corporate sponsors. Standards of "acceptability" will be "strict" at first, then will gradually decline as Eyeo effectively cashes in on its installed userbase. Within 3-4 years, I expect a major "incident" to test the waters of how far things can be pushed, with marked decline setting in shortly thereafter.

In 5 years time, the adblock "market" will have fragmented, development and maintainance stagnated, ad companies will have ramped up their anti-blocker technology, and the internet will have become a very, very annoying place again.

Re:It OGRE. ABP is Kill by Kkloe · 2015-09-30 17:52 · Score: 1

this is the same what I am thinking, and\or the people on the board will start getting bribed

AdBlock Plus? You're Doing the Internet Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:44 · Score: 0

AdBlock Plus is available for Firefox, Chrome-based browsers and Internet Explorer.

To correctly use the Internet, you should be using Pale Moon and AdBlock Latitude.

Why would I NOT want to block some ads? by danbob999 · 2015-09-30 07:48 · Score: 1

Really, this is the question Adblock Plus needs to answer.
I want them to block as much ads as possible, with as little false-positive as possible, and all this on the most automatic/simple way as possible.

They succeed pretty well as long as I uncheck their "allow acceptable ads" setting. I still don't get why this setting exists to begin with.

Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads? by joh · 2015-09-30 08:54 · Score: 1

Well, maybe not this way, but don't you think there should be a way to have websites earn some money so that they can pay people to bring you the content you want to get without having to outright pay them? I mean, either that or you get only websites made by people in their spare time and out of his own pocket (and traffic stops being cheap as soon as lots of people start to like what you do) or websites that are being paid by companies that don't even tell you about it (and then dictate the content too).
Or paywalls, which always have the problem that you have to pay for something you don't know yet if it is worth what you pay for it. Well, or pay them from taxes and let the government serve the content to you for free. Ads are bad, but everything else may be even worse.
Of course individually you can just block the ads while others don't and so pay for your content with their sanity, so you can have your cake and eat it too. I would be quiet about it though since the more people you convince of that being a great idea the worse it will work.
(This does not mean I recommend against ad-blocking, I do it too since many years. We need to put pressure at the industry so it starts to think about handling this better. But just "no ads!!!" isn't going to add much sense to that problem. Can you imagine TV or radio with no ads? Who is paying for this then? The government? Freedom has a price. In Russia advertising has been outlawed for private TV. The people loved it. TV has become a bit one-sided though. The problem isn't ads, it's crappy ads, cheap ads and too many of them and relentless stalking. Ads need to be more expensive so we can have less of them and instead of tracking we need opt-in preferences.)
Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads? by danbob999 · 2015-09-30 09:25 · Score: 2

Well, maybe not this way, but don't you think there should be a way to have websites earn some money

Of course. They are free to put ads. Or charge for access. But I am also free to block their ads.
Let's face it. People like you try to pretend that we block ads because they are annoying. But let's face it, we won't unblock them just because they stop flashing. We block them because we can, and it is perfectly legal to do so. Maybe if ads weren't so annoying, there would be less of us blocking them to begin with. But now that we have ad-blockers, and that we use them, we won't go back.

Can you imagine TV or radio with no ads?

Sure. I watch most of my stuff with no ads. I prefer paying for content than having ads.
Also, I have the right (and use it) to mute/fast-forward/leave the room during TV ads. I don't feel bad about blocking ads, just like I don't feel bad muting TV or not reading ads in newspapers.

Freedom has a price. In Russia advertising has been outlawed for private TV
That was a quick Godwin.
Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads? by amicusNYCL · 2015-09-30 10:28 · Score: 1

Really, this is the question Adblock Plus needs to answer.
The ad-blocking company needs to explain to you why you would want to block ads? Are you paying attention? You realize they make the ad-blocker, right?

I still don't get why this setting exists to begin with.
Did you pay them to download and install the ad-blocker? That's why it exists.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads? by david_thornley · 2015-10-01 02:31 · Score: 1

Your point of view isn't universal. I've lived for a long time in a sea of ads, and I've gotten to the point where I don't mind them normally, and am willing to allow screen space for them to support websites I like. If I had some assurance that the web would become usable and safe without an ad blocker, I'd stop using mine.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads? by danbob999 · 2015-10-01 02:55 · Score: 1

How much money do you think a web site makes with you visiting it for a year? The problem I see with ads is that they are highly inefficient. They do not give a significant amount of money for users who, like me, never click on ads anyways. So I might as well block them then see them and never click.
Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads? by david_thornley · 2015-10-02 04:06 · Score: 1

I haven't been following the details of ads, since I really don't care. At least some used to be pay per display, and some used to be pay per click-through. Are they pretty much all pay per click-through nowadays? If so, then we're not hurting anything by blocking the ads.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Why would I NOT want to block some ads? by danbob999 · 2015-10-02 06:01 · Score: 1

They pay for both. But pay per display revenue is minimal.

and I will... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:55 · Score: 0

and I be willing to view ads to watch you do that live on streaming video.

Their very name became a lie. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 07:59 · Score: 0

As soon as they introduced "acceptable ads" they created an untenable internal contradiction.

the wrong committee by slashmydots · 2015-09-30 08:07 · Score: 0

The independent committee huh? That's usually code for international. I'd stick with the we're from America so free speech rules so piss off, Europe, committee. Who the hell says adblock's creators have to follow the laws in countries they don't reside in? If some country wants to block adblock country-wide, let them. I will be absolutely shocked if this alleged board is 100% American.

'Taboola' shows the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 08:18 · Score: 0

Even when ad companies CLAIM to try to follow some rules and produce 'reasonable' ads, we get stuff like the Taboola CLICKBAIT that passes itself off as 'editorial' (yes, there is a tiny 'ad' warning, but the form of the visual icons is designed to blend with expected editorial content on the page). And this form of advertising TRACKS the user- attempting to use information illicitly gained about the user to present its clickbait options.

CREEPY advertising and TRICKY advertising, even when a static low-weight script-free image, is never acceptable. Web advertising should be like magazine and newspaper advertising and NOTHING more. Static images suitable for the assumed visitors of the site, with ZERO attempt to exploit anything about any given visitor.

It's harder with laptops by tepples · 2015-09-30 08:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Windows 10 cannot stop you from blocking their telemetry addresses in your home router.

Which means you have to carry around your home router and a battery to power it whenever you want to use your laptop with open public Wi-Fi or your cellular MiFi device.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but anyone who values privacy should be using BSD or Linux.

Provided that a laptop in your preferred form factor is available with BSD or Linux installed. The 10" 2-in-1s in Best Buy come with Windows 8.1 (with Windows 10 upgrade available for the cost of bandwidth) and have a whole bunch of things not working in Debian.

Re:It's harder with laptops by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 09:44 · Score: 0

Debian is but one choice. Linux Mint or Ubuntu or openSUSE work with about everything, even really new machines. I do this myself as well as use PC-BSD, which is also very good at hardware detection. It's also possible to use a different firewall than the implicit Windows firewall if the user insists on using Windows.
Re:It's harder with laptops by khellendros1984 · 2015-09-30 10:17 · Score: 1

Probably the guy you responded to should have said "anyone who values privacy [above all else]", rather than omitting the bracketed text. You can always construct a set of use-cases where Linux won't be feasible, and no one in their right mind would argue otherwise. They might use a no-true-Scotsman argument that anyone who prizes a 10" 2-in-1 form factor over privacy doesn't truly value privacy, but that's a whole different argument.

--
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re:It's harder with laptops by david_thornley · 2015-09-30 10:55 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, one common use case that contraindicates Linux is wanting to run programs that aren't on Linux. Much of what I run on my laptop runs only on Windows (or maybe Mac OSX), and that's why I have a Windows laptop. If I were able to run everything I wanted on Linux, or find satisfactory replacements, I'd have an Ubuntu laptop.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:It's harder with laptops by khellendros1984 · 2015-09-30 11:42 · Score: 1

That's part of the point that I was trying to make. Basically, that "just use Linux" has a ton of practical problems (whether originating from hardware or software) some users, but not others...but only commenting on a little hole in the way someone phrased something is kind of cheap, and doesn't really add much to the discussion. As I said, only an idiot would claim any solution to be truly one-size-fits-all; it's too easy to come up with a counter-example. It's more interesting to assume that the other person isn't an idiot and continue the discussion from that point, IMO.

--
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re:It's harder with laptops by tepples · 2015-09-30 13:25 · Score: 1

The 10" 2-in-1s [like ASUS Transformer Book T100] have a whole bunch of things not working in Debian
Debian is but one choice. Linux Mint or Ubuntu or openSUSE work with about everything
Key word: "about". I looked at the instructions for getting Linux Mint up on a Transformer Book, and it appears you have to buy a compatible USB NIC and plug it in so that you can download the driver for the built-in Wi-Fi. I looked up Ubuntu, and Wi-Fi is "buggy" and suspend is "not working". Nor has anyone had luck with openSUSE. Google couldn't turn up anything about PC-BSD on the T100; I can't tell whether this means it "just works" or just that nobody has tried it. I wouldn't bet on the former.
Re:It's harder with laptops by tepples · 2015-09-30 13:27 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, one common use case that contraindicates Linux is wanting to run programs that aren't on Linux.
If you care more about your privacy, you could try replacing the Windows-only applications with comparable applications that are free software or at least that work correctly in Wine.
Re:It's harder with laptops by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:55 · Score: 0

Tried that. Barely avoided stabbing both my eyes out in frustration.
Rule #1. Never use an inferior product because you're trying to make a point about something completely unrelated. Steal the good product instead.
Re:It's harder with laptops by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 23:28 · Score: 0

> If you care more about your privacy, you could try replacing the Windows-only applications with comparable applications that are free software or at least that work correctly in Wine.
Ah but if only Linux *HAD* the equivalents. Or when it has something similar if only it was as good.
You can't replace a Windows with Linux because Linux JUST DOES NOT HAVE THE REQUIRED SOFTWARE.

White list by tompaulco · 2015-09-30 09:26 · Score: 3, Informative

No committee, no user group, no consortium. Just give each user a white list for sites they want to accept ads from here. To get you started, I've paste mine below.

Thank you for your attention.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Re:White list by idbeholda · 2015-09-30 10:28 · Score: 1

This.
Re:White list by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 14:04 · Score: 0

you know what, if i'm actually interested in seeing ads for halogen lights, maybe make it
so i can go to a broker, or google, and search for 'halogen lights ads'
if you decide that based on my browsing profile, your subsequent estimate of my
location, ethnicity, net worth, purchasing history, etc that i really really want to
see this ad about halogens that you'd love me to see..even with no audio or
popups, you can fuck off
you can be sure that i'll try my best to remember never to do business with you.
the fact that no one is promoting this immediate, uncontested form of opt in
as the solution really means that there are no 'legitimate ads', they are all
just as bad as the herbal ED remedies i have to write scripts to scrape out
of my inbox
Re:White list by nitehawk214 · 2015-09-30 16:50 · Score: 1

It already works this way, the problem is Eyeo wants to get a cut of the ad revenue. Sorry, suckers, it isn't like someone else can't do adblock.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:White list by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 22:55 · Score: 0

Haha. It's a white(space) list. :D

AdBlock Plus To Introduce Acceptable Rape Program by OsranaKurwa · 2015-09-30 09:52 · Score: 1

AdBlock Plus To Introduce Independent Board of Pedophiles To Oversee Acceptable Rape Program

...where mega-uber rich corporations gain carte blanche entitlement to break into your house and rape the minds of your children in order to rape your wallet.

It's the TRACKING, Stupid! by tanstaaf1 · 2015-09-30 10:46 · Score: 1

Is Adblock proposing to disallow any and all TRACKING and reading of cookies from other sites? Didn't think so. How many people are stupid enough to think Adblock has their real best interests at heart? We don't have to have sex with strangers as a condition of walking public streets. Why do we have to put up with this shit from pimps such as Google and Facebook ... and Adblock... at all?

Re:It's the TRACKING, Stupid! by gnupun · 2015-10-01 02:04 · Score: 1

Is Adblock proposing to disallow any and all TRACKING and reading of cookies from other sites? Didn't think so.
You can block cookies from other sites yourself:
Firefox -> Settings -> Privacy -> uncheck "Accept third-party cookies"

Is there OpenSource Ad block software? by tanstaaf1 · 2015-09-30 11:03 · Score: 1

Is it any good? I get it that it costs money, or at least a lot of donated time (and even then some real costs), to deliver a good piece of software. I would be willing to donate to support such software if it is a good alternative to Adblock's attempt to pimp me off. In any case, privacy is too important to leave it at the mercy of profit. Some of the open source/ free software projects should maybe be put on hold until the community has a top notch, no BS ad-blocker out the door? I mean, do we really need an upgraded Linux kernel half as much as we need our privacy back and these pimps and voyeurs shat down?

Re:Is there OpenSource Ad block software? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 11:58 · Score: 0

Sure. Adblock Plus itself is open source. Privacy Badger is open source, though it's not an ad blocker per se, it just tends to have that effect after a while. Whatever de-branded Adblock Plus that's in IceCat on Trisquel, that's most likely open source as well.
Re:Is there OpenSource Ad block software? by SilentChasm · 2015-09-30 17:14 · Score: 1

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/
uBlock Origin is open source. It has worked fairly well for me and is supported in most browsers. What it blocks though, like most programs, is based on the blocklists you load into it so you may have to find some to your liking if the defaults don't block enough for you. I haven't noticed any problems with the defaults lists in terms of advertisements getting through and I think it should be fairly effective when combined with Ghostery.

Coren22 CRUSHED & dominated (by facts) by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 12:04 · Score: 0

Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET agrees hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) does too -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts BOTH hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

* HOW MANY REAL SECURITY PROS (not menial wannabe rookie like you) 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 worked professionally for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer professionally since 1994 (with ME showing you HOW to migrate a hosts file across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

(I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES (which you told me you learned from guides) + WARES TO DO IT 1,000's to MILLIONS USED, probably LONGER THAN YOU HAVE BEEN ALIVE possibly BEING PAID FOR IT -> http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... )

---

You're all TALK & can't back it -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

APK

P.S.=> YOU say "hosts=bad" (yet they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch 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)

Hypocrite - You admit using admin priv yourself & how else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?

---

"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) & CLUE/FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best there is) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools... apk

Accept Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hos by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 12:07 · 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 dns blocking
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

No "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 12:12 · Score: 0

APK calls it that and I find it funny.

Who fucking cares! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 12:17 · Score: 0

Nobody uses adblock plus anymore that boat has sailed and many other better options are available.

This is not news.

Re: AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hos by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 12:29 · Score: 0

Lick me where I shit, apk. Your spam is as bad as the problem you purport to solve.

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 12:33 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ 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 dns blocking
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 as well or @ ALL + 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://www.businessinsider.com...

---

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 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 too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 12:37 · 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 dns blocking
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

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 12:39 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ 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 dns blocking
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 as well or @ ALL + 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://www.businessinsider.com...

---

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 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 too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

For the BEST custom hosts file? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 12:42 · Score: 0

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

FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community - using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads & actually SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed), whereas by way of comparison, other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOW YOU DOWN!

* :)

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

Win10 sux & for Win7? Remove tracking easily by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 12:54 · Score: 0

TO REMOVE THE BOGUS OPTIONAL TELEMETRY HOTFIXES MANUALLY:

Open command prompt
Type powershell
issue these commands

---

TO SEE WHAT ONES ARE INSTALLED:

get-hotfix -id KB3035583, KB2952664,KB2976978,KB3021917,KB3044374,KB2990214

---

TO UNINSTALL THEM (these for sure, per url next below):

wusa /uninstall /kb:3035583
wusa /uninstall /kb:2952664
wusa /uninstall /kb:2976978
wusa /uninstall /kb:3021917
wusa /uninstall /kb:3044374
wusa /uninstall /kb:2990214

per http://www.ghacks.net/2015/04/...

---

DESCRIPTIONS OF EACH (these uninstalled properly):

KB3068708 (Telemetry)
KB3075249 (Telemetry)
KB3080149 (Telemetry)

KB3022345 (Telemetry)
KB2977759 (Windows 10 Upgrade preparation)
KB3021917 (Windows 10 Upgrade preparatioon + Telemetry)
KB3035583 (Windows 10 upgrade preparation)

---

I GOT "NOT INSTALLED ON THIS COMPUTER" ON THESE INITIALLY SINCE I HAD IE11 installed (PROBABLY ONES FOR IE9/10/11 &/or Windows 10 (I use Win7 here)):

KB3075249
KB3080149
KB2505438
* KB2670838 (See IE 9/10/11 notes below)
KB3044374
KB2990214 (Windows 10 Upgrade preparation)
KB2505438 (Although it claims to fix performance issues, it often breaks fonts)
KB2976978 (Windows 10 Upgrade preparation)

---

I GOT "NOT INSTALLED ON THIS COMPUTER" ON THESE (*PRIOR* TO PULLING KB2670838):

* KB2670838 (This update often breaks AERO on Windows 7 and makes some fonts on websites fuzzy. A Windows 7 specific update only
(do not install IE10 or 11 otherwise it will be bundled with them, IE9 is the max version you should install to avoid this).

THESE RE-APPEAR AFTER UNINSTALLING IE11 RIGHT ON RESTARTING & CHECKING WINDOWS UPDATE:

* KB2952664 (Windows 10 Upgrade preparation prior to IE9/10/11 install)
* KB3021917 (Windows 10 Upgrade preparation prior to IE9/10/11 install)
* KB3068708 (Windows 10 Upgrade preparation prior to IE9/10/11 install)
* KB3092627 (Windows 10 Upgrade preparation prior to IE9/10/11 install)

---

run cmd as administrator

sc stop Diagtrack
sc delete Diagtrack

---

*Task Scheduler Library:

Everything under "Application Experience"
Everything under "Autochk"
Everything under "Customer Experience Improvement Program"
Under "Disk Diagnostic" only the "Microsoft-Windows-DiskDiagnosticDataCollector"
Under "Maintenance" "WinSAT"
"Media Center" and click the "status" column, then select all non-disabled entries and disable them.

*services.msc:

"Remote Registry" to "Disabled" instead of "Manual".

---

IMPORTANT ONE IS GROUP POLICY (gpedit.msc):

Go to Control Panel, Administrative Templates, System
Internet Communication Management, Internet Communication Settings

ENABLE (to turn it on, it is a disabler)

"Turn off Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program"

(IF YOU HAVE Windows "home" (less than Pro models), export the section of the registry involved from a Pro system & merge the .reg file you exported - should work well enough to do the job here for those of you using that lesser model of Windows)

APK

P.S.=> VERY easy to do, & voila - NO more tracking... apk

Impossible troll... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:02 · Score: 0

My program inserts 0.0.0.0 blocked bad sites & ads. For fav sites you fed it, it reverse dns pings keeping 'em accurate (those are where you spend most likely 95++% of your time online or better & they are resolved locally from system RAM once cached for FASTEST possible resolution vs. remote DNS servers by FAR).

* IF you're going to troll me since you're obviously some "butthurt" fool I've gotten the best of on hosts vs. clearly inferior solutions like browser addons? Be SURE you know what you're talking about first...

Every time you run the program, you update both bad sites & ads to block + YOUR FAVORITE SITES (these are the only possible ones that might do that, but again - MY PROGRAM DOES A VERIFICATION OF THEM SHOULD EVEN THEY CHANGE HOSTING PROVIDERS & thus their ip address...).

APK

P.S.=> You FAILED troll - very VERY badly... apk

Re:Impossible troll... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:58 · Score: 0

*popcorn*
Re:Impossible troll... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 07:14 · Score: 0

No see what you don't understand is. This WAS a valid site. They changed their IP address when they switched providers overnight. Then the old IP address was given to another customer...and my hosts file was suddenly out of date. The new customer was using the old IP address to serve malware.
So fuck you APK and fuck your hosts file. DNS exists for a reason you stupid fucking windbag. Why don't you just kill yourself. Really, kill yourself APK. You are a useless, dickless and worthless piece of shit.
Also DIAF you stupid fuckface.

Exactly & here's how I do it BETTER by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:19 · Score: 0

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

FREE + not 'souled-out' to advertisers & 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 - using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads & actually SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed), whereas by way of comparison, other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOW YOU DOWN!

* :)

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

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:25 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ 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 dns blocking
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 as well or @ ALL + 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://www.businessinsider.com...

---

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 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 too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:26 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ 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 dns blocking
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 as well or @ ALL + 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://www.businessinsider.com...

---

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 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 too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

Ask yourself these questions by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:29 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ 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 poisoning
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past dns blocks
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 edited data
16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts!

APK

P.S.=> Ab+ does less vs. 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 used in a browser via native browser methods!

+

Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

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 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 too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:34 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ 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 dns blocking
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 as well or @ ALL + 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://www.businessinsider.com...

---

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 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 too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:35 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ 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 dns blocking
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 as well or @ ALL + 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://www.businessinsider.com...

---

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 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 too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:37 · 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 dns blocking
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

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:38 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ 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 dns blocking
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 as well or @ ALL + 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://www.businessinsider.com...

---

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 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 too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:39 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ 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 dns blocking
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 as well or @ ALL + 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://www.businessinsider.com...

---

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 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 too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:47 · 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 dns blocking
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

For the best custom hosts file? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:49 · Score: 0

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

FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons like "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" & 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 - using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads & actually SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed), whereas by way of comparison, other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOW YOU DOWN!

* :)

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

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:51 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ 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 dns blocking
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 as well or @ ALL + 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://www.businessinsider.com...

---

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 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 too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

Between patching, security hardening & hosts? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 13:55 · Score: 0

I get no malware infestations via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

FREE + not 'souled-out' to advertisers & 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 - using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads & actually SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed), whereas by way of comparison, other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOW YOU DOWN!

* :)

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

For the best adblocker (& far more)? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 14:08 · Score: 0

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

FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers, + adds speed, security, & reliability, doing FAR more w/ FAR 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 - using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads & actually SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed), whereas by way of comparison, other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOW YOU DOWN!

* :)

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

Exactly: You & I can say that due to this by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 14:10 · Score: 0

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

FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers, + adds speed, security, & reliability, doing FAR more w/ FAR 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 - using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads & actually SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed), whereas by way of comparison, other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOW YOU DOWN!

* :)

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

Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host by phantomfive · 2015-09-30 15:03 · Score: 1

Yeah, I think it can do all of that.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Acceptable Ads my ass by hardburlyboogerman · 2015-09-30 15:28 · Score: 1

NO ad is acceptable in my eyes - that is why I use ad blockers in the first place

--
Geek Hillbilly

Sexconker uses hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 15:28 · Score: 0

"So I block them all in my hosts file" - by sexconker (1179573) on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @07:00PM (#49287895) FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

AND

"Welcome to my HOSTS file, Yahoo." - by sexconker (1179573) on Friday May 02, 2014 @12:40PM (#46900373) FROM -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

Well well - "2-for-the-price-of-1" too no less!

* See subject & "will wonders NEVER cease..."

* :)

APK

P.S.=> With him endorsing hosts usage, hey - how far wrong can I be, right? apk

Re:Sexconker uses hosts by Darinbob · 2015-10-01 08:10 · Score: 1

"Sexconker - the name you can trust!"
Re:Sexconker uses hosts by sexconker · 2015-10-01 08:15 · Score: 1

I'm here to confirm that I absolutely do use HOSTS files to block shit.

Hosts = EASY to maintain via this by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 15:38 · Score: 0

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

FREE & not 'souled-out' to advertisers, + adds speed, security, & reliability, doing FAR more w/ FAR less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues!

It obtains its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

It SPEEDS YOU UP 2 ways (adblocking + locally cached in RAM favorites placed @ the TOP of hosts for fastest resolution speed), whereas by way of comparison, other "so-called security 'solutions'" SLOW YOU DOWN!

It does all that using something you already have vs. "bolting on browser addons 'MOAR' in addons that's usermode slower & increases messagepassing, cpu + ram overuse overheads!

* :)

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

My spider sense are tingling. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 17:34 · Score: 0

I heard someone was setting up racketeering or protection money.

capcha: angels
I doubt that.

I concur: Basic static ads okay by me by bdwoolman · 2015-09-30 18:00 · Score: 1

I started blocking ads and killing scripts a long time ago -- when they became animated and risky . I don't mind Google's text ads particularly. But stuff moving and jumping in the corner of my eye ruins my concentration and interferes with my enjoyment of whatever content I am reading.

The orienting response makes it impossible to ignore such movement. (Marketing psychologists know this.) As long as it keeps still -- like a good old-fashioned magazine ad --I will live with it. And, if of interest, perhaps click through. I also insist on a simple link. No risky dog and pony shows thank you. When advertisers learn some manners I will turn off my ad censors. This might take some time.

--
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy

I don't want others deciding for me by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 18:26 · Score: 0

The point is: I don't want others deciding for me what acceptable ads are.

And: once something enters my door, I'll do whatever I think is right.

(Yeh, I sometimes even click on ads, but without Javascript, most are disfunctional these days :-)

Suck it up, advertising scum: I mostly hate you and the fact you're touting something is for me a reason more *not* to buy it.

me, me, me ! by Tom · 2015-09-30 20:50 · Score: 1

Can I get elected to that board? How? Just so they have one person there who consistently says "no" to any and all ads that they want to label "acceptable".

The only acceptable ad is one that I, the recipient consider acceptable. In such case, I will search it. When I buy a new car, I am interested in product information about cars. At no other times do I want to see advertisement for cars. It really is that simple.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

No ads are acceptable by Anonymous Coward · 2015-09-30 23:22 · Score: 0

I'm not going to look at any of your ads. Stick them up your arse.

The plus... by chrish · 2015-10-01 01:42 · Score: 1

They should rename it "Adblock Plus Ads".

uBlock Origin woooooo!

--
- chrish

Re:Win10 sux & for Win7? Remove tracking easil by Coren22 · 2015-10-01 03:32 · Score: 1

Why would you open a command prompt to open powershell? Wouldn't it be easier to just open powershell directly?

Start - Programs - Accessories - Windows Powershell - Right click on Windows Powershell and select run as administrator.

But as you are the computer god, you already knew that, and were doing it the other way for security right?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Coren22 · 2015-10-01 03:37 · Score: 1

It is good to see you removed the DNSBL in your list. So does that mean you finally see how it was wrong?

8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. caps

What? What do you even mean by any of those? So now you are going to impliment a DNSBL on your mail server to stop spam and phishing (which can come from any host, including Gmail)? How does hosts protect against caps? Does it cause all capital letters to automatically convert to lowercase?

15.) Give you easily controlled data

What?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Win10 sux & for Win7? Remove tracking easil by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 03:49 · Score: 0

Windows 10 may "sux", but that won't stop people from using it. Stop lying to people that your HOSTS file will block everything when it can't even block these two addresses:
vortex-win.data.microsoft.com
settings-win.data.microsoft.com

P.S. HOOOOOOOOOOOOSTS!

Determining "their own pages" programmatically by tepples · 2015-10-01 04:57 · Score: 1

If a website allows scripts to be placed on their pages from unknown parties without even looking at the scripts, then it's going to invite malware.
I trust Yahoo.com to not write malware on their own pages

Implicit in this is a policy of rejecting scripts and the like that are hotlinked from a different website. But how would a browser determine whether a request belongs to "a different website"? You can't just go by whether the public suffix matches, especially when a site serves its own static resources from its CDN on a different, cookieless domain.

Re:Determining "their own pages" programmatically by phantomfive · 2015-10-01 05:09 · Score: 1

Problems!
I solve those problems by blocking all ads. As long as malware pops up in ads from time to time, I will continue to do so.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Determining "their own pages" programmatically by tepples · 2015-10-01 06:28 · Score: 1

How does your system determine whether a newly seen URI is that of an ad?
Re:Determining "their own pages" programmatically by phantomfive · 2015-10-01 08:58 · Score: 1

Good question! I don't actually know. If you find out, tell me.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Still trolling? My next post puts you away by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 05:32 · Score: 0

I changed it so nitpicking wannabes like YOU don't get confused - I lost nothing & kept the point so, you fail as usual.

APK

P.S.=> See my subject line? My next post is where you TOTALLY fucked up on administrative privelege with proof of it since security wares like I write (which you only play at menial & minus coders like myself creating wares for you to use you're helpless) - just to let others see how LAME you really are... apk

Re:Still trolling? My next post puts you away by Coren22 · 2015-10-01 05:58 · Score: 1

You mean like how you got confused between DNSBL which is a DNS black list used by mails servers, and a DNS block which is a tool of governments used to suppress things they don't like.
I didn't get confused by anything, you were confused in your terminology, when it was pointed out to you, you flew into an attack rage like you tend to do, and apparently are still doing.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Coren22 CRUSHED & dominated (by facts) by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 05:35 · Score: 0

YOU say "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege 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)

Hypocrite - You admit using admin priv yourself & how else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best there is) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

---

Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) does too -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS MORE DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUT OF YOU?

---

Those security pros INCLUDE ME too: I work w/ those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!

I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (with ME showing you HOW to migrate a hosts file across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me too - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%... (you told me you learn from guides? I write them - good ones)

+ WARES TO DO IT that MILLIONS USE BEING PAID FOR IT -> http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn... )

You did all that? No & that's only a fraction of what I could put out.

APK

P.S.=> You're all TALK & can't back it -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security

...apk

Are you STUPID, or what? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 05:46 · Score: 0

Vs. bandwidth caps hosts save it blocking ads as ads are up to 40-50% of many site pages you load. Hosts block ALL ads they're given to block sources of them. AdBlock doesn't due to being BRIBED by Microsoft, Amazon, & Google -> http://www.businessinsider.com...

Easily controlled data is just that - I've taught very uneducated people how hosts work (by telling them the IP address is analogous to a phone number & the sitename is analogous to a person's name - they get it, instantly & understand how to do edits to it IF NEEDED in notepad.exe or any text editor).

Compared to regular expressions in AdBlock rulesets OR DNS rulesets? Hosts edits are CAKE!

(E.G.-> I showed folks adblock's regex & they were ALL like "WTF is that? Chinese??")

As far as spam & phishing mails? I gather them & look @ their sources for sources of them or their malicious payloads, all from my email everyday & add them so when they come again & they ALWAYS do? Their malicious payloads are blocked - & if I can manage that?? So can anyone.

APK

P.S.=> See my subject line above: Why I even BOTHERED asking that after the above & this MASSIVE FAIL OF YOURS here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... is beyond me, but I did, stating the truth & the obvious is all... apk

Re:Are you STUPID, or what? by Coren22 · 2015-10-01 05:59 · Score: 1

Um, adblock blocks all ads as well, that feature you point to is optional, it can be turned off. It however is an attempt to come to a compromise by getting rid of crappy ads, and allowing ads that aren't so obnoxious.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

"AlmostALLAdsBlocked" doesn't by default by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 06:11 · Score: 0

See subject: Advertisers & corps bribed them not to & know most users won't change defaults http://www.businessinsider.com...

AdBlock/Ghostery/AdBlock+ & the like don't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for added speed, security, reliability or anonymity - YET HOSTS DO SO FOR FAR LESS RESOURCE CONSUMPTION TOO, doing more with less!

AND

Hosts are faster (no regex slowups & hosts operate in kernelmode, not slower usermode, like addons do increasing messagepassing overheads in browsers + hosts are queried FIRST by default over remote DNS even - operating LONG BEFORE addons do AND hosts also speed up your favorite sites where you are 95++% of the time probably online by placing them @ the TOP of hosts cached into RAM for the utmost in speed + reliability as a bonus too vs. redirect poisoned DNS (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are NOT patched against to this very day even though a patch exists))

APK

P.S.=> Clue: You FAIL again, lol - as per your usual... apk

You constantly troll me: Result? Inside by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 06:18 · Score: 0

YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege 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)

Hypocrite - You admit you use admin priv

&

How else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

---

Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) does too -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS MORE DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?

---

Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!

I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me too - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

You told me you learn from guides? I write 'em (good ones) that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...

+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that're endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

You did all that? No & that's a small part of what I could put out.

APK

P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security

...apk

Re:You constantly troll me: Result? Inside by Coren22 · 2015-10-01 06:55 · Score: 1

So, in other words "I have no response to your extremely well thought out argument, so I am going to post incoherent garbage that has already been debunked numerous times just to make it look like the answers haven't been given yet."
Oh, and you should respond to the AC responses to another of these shitposts:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
They might just be on to something.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:You constantly troll me: Result? Inside by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 07:33 · Score: 0

Hahahahaha Apk did reply and flattened you exposing you're all talk and no action http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

At least I can backup my words (you can't, p.s.) by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 06:21 · Score: 0

YOU say "hosts=bad" (but they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitch on admin privelege 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)

Hypocrite - You admit you use admin priv

&

How else could I programmatically update hosts minus it inside Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

---

Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) does too -> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts hosts & recommends my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

---

* HOW MANY SECURITY PROS MORE DO I NEED TO KNOCK THE CHOCOLATE OUTTA YOU?

---

Those security pros INCLUDE me: I work w/ those guys from malwarebytes' hpHosts on a regular basis!

I've professionally worked for decades as a combined domain-wide network admin & software engineer since 1994 (Even showing you HOW to migrate a hosts across an enterprise -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

I've also been securing computers + WRITING GUIDES using CIS Tool (who took fixes from me too - bonus) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

You told me you learn from guides? I write 'em (good ones) that MILLIONS USE & was PAID FOR IT http://pcpitstop.com/news/winn...

+ WARES TO PROTECT USERS that're endorsed & hosted by security pros -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

You did all that? No & that's a small part of what I could put out.

APK

P.S.=> You're all TALK -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & a "ne'er-do-well" as far as security

...apk

Fair challenge: Debunk this Coren22... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-01 07:27 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ 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 dns blocking
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 as well or @ ALL + 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://www.businessinsider.com...

---

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 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 too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

DarinBob can be trusted to "Run" (Forrest) by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-02 03:28 · Score: 0

See subject & this link where you "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. validly technically proving me wrong http://news.slashdot.org/comme... on my points on hosts doing FAR MORE than "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" ever could & for FAR LESS resources consumed.

* :)

APK

P.S.=> Sexconker is honest about it - he may be trolling me but he DOES use hosts files & reconfirms it yet again once more for a 3rd time in response to you -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... so, regardless of your saying that? Sexconker does indeed, use hosts files, proving his good sense & taste vs. yours... apk

No, YOU don't understand DNS & can't read by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-03 01:06 · Score: 0

See subject & my last post: My program does a reverse DNS ping to do your favorite sites YOU give it. DNS propogation takes up to 24 hours too - so, if you ran my program & that hapepned, guess where the fault lies? DNS & moreso with YOU since you don't know HOW DNS WORKS (takes time on a change to propogate from the root 13 DNS servers outward to all others on the planet - THIS IS A KNOWN "DOWNSIDE" OF DNS - stale for 24 hrs during propogation).

APK

P.S.=> Moron... apk

Enjoy "eating your words" with it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-04 01:58 · Score: 0

See subject: How'd they both taste with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them down -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

?

* :)

(You fail trolls, as always, vs . "yours truly"...)

APK

P.S.=> You must just LOVE that "feeling of failure" don't you? apk

Why is any of that a problem? They are apps. by SuperKendall · 2015-10-04 07:29 · Score: 1

Seems like a risky game to play, given that their services heavily depend on ad funded sources for data.

Pretty much nothing you mentioned would be accessed by general users much on the web; mostly through apps where the advertising (if any) is not blocked.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host by Ash-Fox · 2015-10-04 23:34 · Score: 1

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 dns blocking
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

My DNS daemon at home can do all of that though.

P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently

My DNS daemon does it more efficiently by returning NXDOMAIN for blocked hosts. None of the computers on my network even attempt to establish a TCP connection to anything. Nobody even has to configure their computers to do anything when they use my Wi-Fi / LAN, it's 'just works'.

(hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

My DNS daemon is only taking up 2MiB of system memory currently on the router and takes up no memory on the PCs on my network. My DNS server is also more efficient by being able to block complete domains owned by malware authors instead of just specific subdomains too.

What's best?

Clearly my setup as the technical advantages here.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-06 05:39 · Score: 0

Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do 4 speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C talkback
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C talkback
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C talkback
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (for reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoning
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dns blocks
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.) Easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads better vs. addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + 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).

---

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 browsers via native browser methods!

---

Ab+'s paid to not do its job by default http://www.businessinsider.com... & ABP bought out adblock http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

---

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

---

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

---

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 safe per 57 antivirus programs in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

a 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

Ublock = inferior & inefficient vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-06 05:41 · 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 dns blocking
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

Ghostery = 'souled-out' & inferior vs. hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-06 05:42 · 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 dns blocking
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

You're piling on 'MoAr' for no good reason by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-14 05:31 · Score: 0

See subject: Complexity, & costs in buying routers that are better than users have & eating more CPU cycles to do it.

* You fail... as always.

APK

P.S.=> Lastly: Posting 7-8 DAYS after I did, thinking I wouldn't see it doesn't work either, Ash-Fox - I'll get that last word that destroys you as always!

Besides:

Haven't YOU had enough being CRUSHED by "yours truly" before (DNS vs. hosts) -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... ?

(NOW you're attempting to "move the goalposts" SWITCHING TO ROUTERS too? LMAO...)

TELL US: CISCO 2811 & others like it - How many times have routers been abused by malware RECENTLY? Answer = TONS!

Would you like a HUGE posting on that too?? Ask & "ye shall receive"... apk

Re: AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hos by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-14 05:41 · Score: 0

Prove apk technically wrong validly. You can't. Apk can post to inferior browser addon users if they post. You don't own /. so take your own advice coward.

Re:AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. host by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-14 05:46 · Score: 0

Wrong. AdBlock can't touch the DNS portion hosts do nor can adblock touch botnets or malware hosts block. Adblock doesn't even block all ads by default anymore as it was bribed not to by Microsoft, Google, and Amazon.

"Putting words in my mouth" I never said? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-10-14 05:52 · Score: 0

See subject: Where'd I say "hosts cure all"? Show us. I never did. Hosts do more for less vs. addons (inferior redundant ones by far) & as I posted? That's easy stuff to remove in the LAST GOOD VERSION OF WINDOWS (7).

* Gosh "LOTS OF PEOPLE" bought & by choice used Windows VISTA (not) - Same deal is happening with Win10 due to the tracking/spying...

APK

P.S.=> This is how I KNOW I am winning here - puny weak tactics like yours... lol! Thanks for the help... apk

Slashdot Mirror

AdBlock Plus To Introduce Independent Board To Oversee Acceptable Ads Program

263 comments