Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Will Force Advertising On Ad-Blocking Users (wsj.com)
Long-time reader geek writes: Facebook is going to start forcing ads to appear for all users of its desktop website, even if they use ad-blocking software (Could be paywalled; alternate source). The social network said on Tuesday that it will change the way advertising is loaded into its desktop website to make its ad units considerably more difficult for ad blockers to detect. "Facebook is ad-supported. Ads are a part of the Facebook experience; they're not a tack on," said Andrew "Boz" Bosworth, Facebook's vice president of engineering for advertising and pages.
Challenge Accepted...
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
If facebook continues to make its site user-unfriendly, I'll simply stop using facebook. I've already dropped back on my usage because I cannot view my timeline the way I want to view it, i.e., facebook keeps shoving things it considers to be "important" in my face, things I don't care about. If facebook starts doing the same thing with ads, I'll just move on.
Will this lead to a paid version of Facebook, that allows paid subscribers to see less or no ads?
"engineering for advertising"
does not compute.
What trouble? You install adblock/ublock/whatever. It takes 5 minutes. If you aren't running adblock your computer has probably already been hacked.
Just now, when Facebook has started losing users for the first time in its history, and more and more people are turning (finally) to adblockers for self-defense against malware and data charges (also thanks to the ongoing lawsuits in different country against AdBlock), Facebook finally announces that it will inject more ads.
Yeah, I guess with this shovel digging their own grave will become much easier.
Whenever FB puts an adv. in my feed I flag it as being Offensive and Sexually explicit. It may not screw FB over by much to do so, but it makes me feel good.
(Kinda like yesterday when I strung the Indian "computer support" guy along for 15 minutes by pretending to poking around my windows machine. In the end he asked my what browser I was using, and when I said Safari he swore in his native language and then hung up on me)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Facebook's in the business of selling ads. If they keep adblockers from working, then some people will just put up with the ads, and some people will stop using Facebook. I bet the second group is actually pretty darn small (/. readers are HIGHLY non-representative of the population as a whole), and, since they aren't generating any revenue for FB, I don't think they'll be crushed to see them go.
How else am I going to farm my pixels? I have to keep harvesting them every day
"Your proposal is acceptable."
You are not Facebook users, you are what Facebook sells!
LOL.. yeah, "social pariah." Goes to show just how far down the rabbit hole you've gone. why don't you try stepping away from the screen once in a while. Join a club. Volunteer. 95% of your "friends" on facebook are anything but that.
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
On today's Internet, an Ad-blocker does more to protect your computer than traditional anti-virus software. What a world, what a world...
Don't read the following text if you wish to avoid the before mentioned crappy product.
Please advert eyes to really avoid...
Facebook.
95% of your "friends" on facebook are anything but that.
Well put my friend!
It won't work.
I use Element Hiding Helper (for AdBlock plus). With a few clicks, and some examination for a pattern, I can block any set of junk by html class, css, domain, and so on.
Also, I don't waste my time on FB, but block TONS of junk on sites I do frequent.
If Facebook can't stop everybody's page from being cloned, it can't stop the next AdBlocker update.
Once it becomes Illegal to disconnect your neural implant from the 'Net' you will have no choice but to view endless ads 24 hrs a day, awake and asleep. The day is coming.
And we though the survivalists were preparing to escape people with guns... no it's to avoid the mandatory ads, ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court decision of 2022 under the individual mandate...
Facebook is ad-supported. Ads are a part of the Facebook experience; they're not a tack on,
A) Yes the ads ARE tacked on after the fact. B) Facebook being ad supported is Not My Problem (tm). If they want to negotiate a deal directly with me for cash money whereby I will no longer block ads I'm willing to have that conversation but it won't be cheap. Certainly will cost them more than the shitty services they currently provide. I will actively fight anyone who thinks they have a right to put advertisements in front of me without my explicit permission.
I'm already down to checking it about twice a day. I can easily cut those down, too.
I moved to Face Slim after the developer (re-)enabled messaging. It has the following setting:
Hide some sponsored posts
We don't like sponsored posts and ads.
Hopefully developer Krzysztof Grabowski will keep up with the corporate subterfuge. It's a shame that Tinfoil has gone dormant.
I'm sure the ad-blockers will adapt to this. And BTW it isn't just facebook, it seems lately some ads are starting to come through on other sites. I don't know if that's ABP being more of a whore than usual... even though I have it set to *not* allow "unintrusive" ads through.
Besides, WTF do I care.. there's only one page on facebook that I actually *do* care about.
Bloom County.
I'm sure that if FB implodes Berkeley Breathed will just find some other means to distribute Bloom County.
I literally don't visit any other part of facebook.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
You have every right in the world to ditch facebook, but you will become a complete social pariah in 2016 doing that.
If you actually believe that then you probably are severely lacking in real world friends. Just because someone "friends" you on Facebook doesn't actually mean they are your friend. If your "friends" treat you like a social pariah for not looking at their banal Facebook scribblings then they probably aren't someone you really need to be spending time interacting with anyway.
I know a lot of ad block users who have suggested that publishers should take control of, or better police, their advertising. One of the most common suggestions is that publishers should host the advertising that appears on their pages. So, here's Facebook doing that very thing and yet 90% of the comments above are now whining about that too. You are all a bunch of parasitical crybabies.
I use an ad blocker and a tracker blocker and sometimes a script blocker as well. I strenuously object to the "let the viewer beware" attitude that most web site operators these days seem to have. Allowing third parties to inject code into their pages to be delivered to my browser without a second thought should be a criminal act.
While I have no use for Facebook whatsoever, they should be applauded for stepping up by taking control of, and responsibility for, the advertising that will appear on their pages. If you don't like it then you are all free to quit the site and join folks like me who talk to their friends face to face or on the phone now and then.
And you have the right to use any ad block, invent a new one or whatever to avoid them pushing more ads on you.
Achille Talon
Hop!
As if I needed any more reasons to avoid Facebook they go ahead and give me a doozy like this. Cute how they think I'm obligated to cooperate with their little scheme. Seriously I can't imagine anything Facebook could do at this point that would make me want to use their service.
It's a way of staying in touch with your friends. It's a way to keep in communication. It's a way to share positive experiences and reach out for support when life kicks you in the face. It allows you to announce things 'safely'; a friend announced the death of his uncle on facebook without having to go through the emotions of telling people face to face.
It's not necessary, but it has become a useful tool in our culture.
Wait, you "accepted the challenge" and then passed the buck on to somebody else? I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. :-)
"Facebook Will Force Advertising On Ad-Blocking Users"
Of course they will, lol. Duh.
After all, Facebook users have NO CHOICE but to use Facebook and allow them to force you to watch ads. Really, you have no choice, none at all. Suck it up and get used to it.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
that beats the new FB changes in 1... 2... 3....
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
As long as F.B. Purity works, I will be on Facebook.
I should put something clever here. Maybe someday.
Sorry FB, you can go shove it. The blockers will find a way. The industry must change or it will collapse under its problems.
Silence is a state of mime.
"Everyone who's anyone uses Facebook! Don't be such a square!"
You don't need FB for Bloom County: http://www.gocomics.com/bloom-...
I wonder if, in forcing users who are blocking ads to load them anyway, Facebook is willing to accept liability for the inevitable occurrence of embedded malware infecting users through a browser exploit. This is no joke: we know for a fact that ads containing malicious code have been served to users, who then have their systems compromised. If Facebook makes money from selling these ads to users, then they should have a legal obligation to not circumvent ad blocking software as a security measure.
Of course, Facebook and its customers (read: the advertisers) will accept no such responsibility for their shitty security practices. It's all on the users. It's your fault, and yours alone, if there are any negative consequences of choosing to share information about yourself through the site; your fault if your system is compromised through an advertisement that hides malicious code, even if you try to protect yourself by blocking ads. And while many people who refuse to use Facebook (myself included) on principle might say caveat emptor and that you don't have to use Facebook, the practical reality is that that horse has long since left the barn and that the only logical position for ourselves is to protest Facebook's practices, because if our acquaintances get hacked, that has clear ramifications for the security of our own personal information even if we did not share it with Facebook.
Yes, requests from Candy Crush, can't leave your friends hanging.
Didn't you have ads in the 21st century? Well sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio, and in magazines, and movies, and at ball games... and on buses and milk cartons and t-shirts, and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams, no siree.
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
I'm envisioning some sort of bipedal autonomous robot that tracks down annoying advertisers and telemarketers and beats them with a stick.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The problem is that in the current environment, where more and more ISP's are charging big money for going over their arbitrary bandwidth caps, nobody is discussing the amount of bandwidth wasted in downloading ads and, even worse, video ads. You should be paying me if you want to use my bandwidth to try and sell me something. Luckily, my current ISP does not cap my bandwidth, but why should I be expected to subsidise any web site's need to make money with ads that are increasingly becoming bandwidth and CPU hogs and are simply ruining the web for everyone. The over-abundance and the sheer resources that many of these ads require is the reason that many people are blocking them in the first place. Why should it take a minute to load a web page with less than 1000 characters of actual content? The marketing people have simply gotten out of hand. There is a real cost to receiving these ads and nobody is dealing with that issue.
"15 million facebook users infected with malware in a popunder ad."
When we asked people about why they used ad blocking software, the primary reason we heard was to stop annoying, disruptive ads.
Of course the primary reason you HEARD was "to stop annoying, disruptive ads", because you're an advertiser, or in other words a raving psychopath.
The primary reason they actually SAID was "to stop ads."
It wasn't gneiss.
You plugged into THEIR website and requested resources, they said sure, and gave you the resources along with some ads to offset the electrical requirements...
stick with car analogizes
A good ad-blocker should let the page think it is being rendered exactly as requested, but actually removing the display of the ads to the user.
What manner of Javascript trickery or feedback loops do large site owners use to try to get around that?
It seems like the paradigm needs to be a sort of sandbox for the page and its anti-adblocker scripting, and then the page is delivered to the user sans ads completely unknowingly to the page.
I guess the one thing Facebook could do to make it very hard to remove the ads is to make them look exactly like a user post. you would need a sort of fingerprinting as another poster mentioned to get around it.
95% of your "friends" on facebook are anything but that.
95% of my friends on FB are relatives that live on 3 different continents.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
So what were you on about?
I have no interest in your ads, so therefore I will block them using the numerous technical means available.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Facebook will have as much danger facing liability for malware as Microsoft faces for botnets.
Big BIZ is immune and deaf to the cries and powerless threats of the little man.
Big BIZ owns the government and keeps it in the folds of it's deep wallet.
Bug BIZ gets what it wants, and we are at best an ant on it's road to profit.
Unless a sizable percentage of users check into Facebook Unanonymous and successfully complete detox, nothing will change anytime soon.
is are you going to stop using Facebook. It's child's play to break adblockers. Just serve the ads up from your site instead of with an iframe.
/.ers will stop. But I'm guessing the general populace won't. I know one of my buddies who's a table top gamer absolutely hates facebook but lives with it because that's how tournaments and even pickup games are organized. Back in the 'good old days' you showed up at a store and got a pickup game. Now it's all coordinated over Facebook.
A lot of
You might be thinking "Well, there'll be an ad free social network, I'll join that!". Go ahead. If you can't get everybody on it then it's useless. Google learned that with G+. Meanwhile your cut off from a significant portion of society. You can bitch & moan all you want that those folks are sheeple but it doesn't change the practical reality of the situation.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Most of those 'friends' on Facebook aren't really your friends. Most of them wouldn't stop eating their doughnut if they found out you'd died.
That explains why I see less posts from people...
Facebook ads are just regular Facebook posts from non-friends. If there were exploits people wouldn't bother paying for an ad they would just spread them through regular posts.
I have yet to find a site with ads that I can't block...
Unless they are going to embed the ads directly in user photos that I want to see facebook can blow me.
LOL.. yeah, "social pariah." Goes to show just how far down the rabbit hole you've gone. why don't you try stepping away from the screen once in a while. Join a club. Volunteer. 95% of your "friends" on facebook are anything but that.
The CEO of a company I once worked at remarked at a social event that some famous person was a friend. I said to her "You mean you actually know her or they are a name on a list on a social networking site?". She sheepishly said "Facebook". I didn't get fired.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Can APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit block ads that come from the same domain of the content?
For example, if I'm visiting "https://example.com", and it serves ads sourced from "https://example.com/ads/", can APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit block them?
Because that's what Facebook is going to do to try thwarting ad blocks, including thwarting APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I predict I will be able to go back to my ad-blocking ways in less than 24 hours after this.
I really see no reason to support the ad supported business model. Most of the internet's history shows that ads have been a burden on the proper functioning of the network, and ad revenue was not a significant contributor to the maintenance, function and expansion of the internet. I laugh in the face of anyone who tries to convince me that removing ads from the Internet will be the downfall of the service and of civilization. (to be fair, I live in Silicon Valley, so the people I interact with are usually micro-CEOs for some nonviable pipe-dream start-up)
If you want to operate a business online, great. If you want to send virtual flyers to your repeat customers who opt-in, fine. Do I need every video player and social network covered with CSS overlays for ads? no way!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Somehow, somewhat strangely, you seem to actually care about Facebook - so much so that you even bother to comment about it.
As did you. I care about Facebook in the same way that I care about something like malaria. I consider it a sort of public health emergency.
Now maybe people will finally start using Google+ instead!
To be completely honest, "promoted posts" or even straight-up ads don't really bother me; what bothers me is all of the recent news articles saying they are full of malware.
I do not know how facebook plans on pushing ads through, but the obvious way would be for them to host them on their own system.
Does this mean that the ads will not be virus payloads? If that is the case, my ad blocker accomplished its mission.
I will turn off my adblocker for your site if
1 ads are STATIC IMAGES ONLY (text ads are fine and you may script ad swapping/updating) ..)
2 you take responsibilty for the content of the ad (no outsourcing to an outsourcer that
3 this includes paying to have my system rebuilt if a bad ad gets served to me
4 give me the capability to block types of ads i do not want to see (yes you can datamine this info as you would like)
oh and clearly separate ad content from "real" content
Maybe it's time for you to stop using Facebook altogether.
I would have to start using Facebook first. I've never had an account and have no plans to get one.
Your continued use of the site IS their explicit permission that they can serve you their content - ads and all.
I don't use their site so they don't have any permission from me about anything. Anyway they can try. Doesn't mean I have to cooperate or let them do it. I have confidence I'll win that arms race.
A true manager in the making!
I'm sure the ad-blockers will adapt to this. .
Except I still can't read wired or Forbes with my adblocker running.
(Unless something has changed very recently.)
Product accepted! Who's up for somebody else paying for it?
"Old man yells at systemd"
No, it cannot. Host-based blocking will not work for Facebook, they are clearly large enough to serve all of their ads themselves. This is where content inspection is required, not just outright blocking a domain.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
But I want to block ads on Facebook.
Can you upgrade APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit so that it will be able to begin blocking ads on Facebook once Facebook starts serving ads from its own domain as if they were normal pages?
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
It's amazing how 20 years ago everyone looked down on anyone who sat at a computer on bulletin board systems all the time. Now everyone's doing it, it's OK. F*cking hypocrites.
Social media is not being social. I recently told someone this and they gave me a blank stare. You have to go out and meet people face-to-face and put your damn facebook app away. I'm personally not on facebook and never will be.
I left FB about two months ago. I thought I would have withdrawal symptoms, but it turns out the rest of the Internet is full of people fighting about Trump v Hillary, too.
That explains why I see less posts from people...
Fewer. You see "fewer" posts from people.
You can have less milk or gas or oxygen but not fewer.
You can have fewer chairs or bullets or pillows, but not less.
This concludes the Grammar Nazi(tm) post on "Countable and Uncountable Nouns" for August 9th, 2016.
We now return you to our regularly-scheduled flame-throwing, already in progress.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
95% of your "friends" on facebook are anything but that.
For some yes for others who don't have a metric shit ton of "friends" it is likely that 100% of their friends on facebook are real friends or relatives who they actually like. It is actually fairly useful for keeping in contact with far flung real friends in an almost broadcast like manner. It is also really useful when planning a get together of 12 people who are spread across 6 contents and 7 countries. That said I only have about 35 or so Facebook friends and they are either relatives or were friends in real life long before Facebook.
Time to offend someone
I'm actually a fairly active Facebook user, and am totally fine with ads as long as they don't blink, move around, obstruct what I'm reading, etc.
My main problem with them is that you do not get ads without the ads tracking what you are doing. Unlike advertising on my TV which isn't particularly directed at me, online advertisers seem to think they have some $diety given right to track my every movement and mouse click. I disagree and I take active measure to prevent it. I am NOT fine with being tracked to that degree. So the ads get blocked and will remain so because I fundamentally cannot trust these companies.
Funny thing is that I would (and do) happily subscribe to various website that provide me services and content I find valuable. I'd be more than happy to break off a few bills for a valuable service if they weren't so damn arrogant and creepy.
Like the good old Google text ads, they were pretty useful even at times.
Maybe to you there were/are useful. To me, not so much. Never clicked on a single one on purpose.
ABP remains active, let's just see what happens and how it develops.
ABP, uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, plus a few other countermeasures are in active use on my machines.
Is this a Slashdot discussion or the beginning of a glorious Facebook flame war? ;)
I have less bullets to wage such a battle these days, and there are fewer oxygen molecules available in my basement to breathe for the impending digital slaughter.
However, your point is good taken, I do still have much to learn about the ways of grammar! Thank you I will for your gracious correction.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
People hate advertising.
Ad blockers allow people to endure some services. Without them, the choice between being harassed or not using the service seems trivial.
Bar a couple of exceptions, any service that asked me to disable my adblocker just got me closing the page and looking for the next choice.
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
I experimented with advertizing on FB for my small business and found that it was effective for getting "likes" and "shares" but not conversions into people even visiting the website, let alone using it. When I looked at the pages of the people liking and sharing, it became apparent that they were almost all the type of people who like and share dozens of posts per day, so their friends probably unfollowed their posts long ago. The ad algorithms are obviously tuned to maximize your payment to FaceBook while appearing to give you good results (yay! look at how many likes and shares you got! you're practically going viral!), so they seem to intentionally show your ads to those types of people. If you have a useless site with attention-grabbing click-bait images and "news" entertainment that makes money off of stuffing tons of additional ads on the site itself, then maybe it is worth advertising on FB. But if you are trying to advertize a legitimate product or service, FB does not seem to be a very cost-effective way to go.
"they're not a tack on" no they are a TICK Off!
The thing is, facebook needs to make a 'target' (a site that works around ublock origin and hosts solutions), at which point, developers will tear that target down. Right now, facebook is ad-free if you have the filter on your display-device. When that changes, a new filter will be made. Everyone saying stuff like "oh it's super easy to stop ad blockers" don't realize that the fundamentals are, a remote server has a document, and you display it locally according to a set of your own rules. They don't control your CPU, or your monitor, you do. You can work around a given ad blocker. Then there will be a new ad blocker. Etc.
I mean, I can view those sites without ads just fine. You should google it, there's plenty of workarounds.
The industry should agree to decent standards for ad-serving rather than engage in a messy cat-and-mouse game.
Table-ized A.I.
Embedded malware in ads isn't inevitable. The can implement non-shitty security practices, like recompress images and video and forbid or scrutinize JavaScript.
I feel if people aren't private messaging then they aren't having a personal conversation anyway.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Once it becomes Illegal to disconnect your neural implant from the 'Net' you will have no choice but to view endless ads 24 hrs a day, awake and asleep. The day is coming.
And we though the survivalists were preparing to escape people with guns... no it's to avoid the mandatory ads, ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court decision of 2022 under the individual mandate...
You're probably much closer to the truth than you realize.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
He's referring to the fact that many people have friends who will *only* send an invite to an event on Facebook. You'll find out a week later that you missed event X and they'll say, "didn't you see it on Facebook??!?"
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Whats funny about that line of reasoning is that my teen and twenty something relatives have mostly stopped using FB and use other social apps.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
It's amazing how 20 years ago everyone looked down on anyone who sat at a computer on bulletin board systems all the time. Now everyone's doing it, it's OK. F*cking hypocrites.
You got that right.
Until "apps", the iPhone and FB all took off around 2007-2010, thats how it was.
Then when everyone could walk around all the time looking at their phone and mindlessly scrolling through FB posts, it was all ok.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Too bad this is still at 0 and not modded to -1. AmicusNYCL hasn't built such a thing. He's pointing out that it would be incredibly hard. In the past Ad Blocking was relatively simple as the ads were served from ad networks rather than from the actual site you are visiting. So there were pretty simple algorithms to block them. Facebook is different because they can run their own in-house ad network and present the ads the same way as their native content. The only way to block this would be a cat-and-mouse game of trying to figure out which page elements are the advertisements on any given day.
FaceBook and email are not substitutes for one another. Facebook has a moderation system similar to /. If mutual acquaintances / friends like something, you are more likely to see it. Sure you could send a mass email to all of your friends / family members once a day detailing your life, but none of them will read it and they'll think you're weird. Or you break it up into a bunch of FB posts, different people happen to see different parts of it. But if something is interesting, they like it and then FB pushes it up in terms of what to show your other friends / family. People like seeing your FB updates, they hate getting your emails. Even without the technical differences, that's enough to set the two apart.
95% of your "friends" on facebook are anything but that
Interesting thought. So do you talk to only your closest friends? I.e. you would never catch-up with anyone, send post cards to overseas people, take any interest in the activities of relatives you don't see frequently?
You're very right, 95% of my friends on facebook are not my friends. But 100% of the people I've friended on facebook I take an interest in, and they take an interest in me, and as someone who recently emigrated from my local social network, having it online has allowed me to easily stay in touch and up to date with what is happening with all of them, because screw the old way of writing and reading yearly cards, emails, letters, keeping track of birthdays in my diary and shit like that.
I would pay a couple of bucks a month to a subscription service that would provide links to various domains (that partner with the service) with NO ADS in them. I would pay for that. Netflix where are you?
I'm in 2 clubs and 2 volunteer organizations. Guess how 3 of them communicate? Run a business? You probably want to be on Facebook, especially if it's any kind of recreation business. E-mail groups? Most people don't read their e-mail, and it's HORRIBLE for conversation. A forum on a website? Great, have that, but now I have to fight spam bots and nobody EVER remembers their damn username or password. Using a third party hosted forum that deals with a lot of that for me? Still ads. Even on a private server, I use facebook and google authentication. It fights most of the spam and deals with password issues for me.
And you're right, a lot of my friends aren't friends that would come bail me out of jail or help me move, but a lot of them would offer me a couch if I was traveling through their area, and have when I posted my travels. I wound up in another country and get a message from an old "friend" as you would say that he is also there that same week. Haven't seen each other in 10 years, probably never would have met again in our lives but because of Facebook we ended up meeting for dinner and having a great time.
I know it's not popular to like Facebook, but it doesn't have to be just political BS and farmville. Facebook actually offers pretty good tools to tune it to what you want it to be, so just like in life you can either whine and moan about what's dealt to you, or you can put in a little effort and make it more to your liking.
You have every right in the world to ditch facebook, but you will become a complete social pariah in 2016 doing that.
That's funny - I'm hardly a social pariah and I've not checked into my facebook page in ages - it hasn't been updated since 2008/2009.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
How is that question relevant? The question is whether host-based blocking can block ads served from the same domain. The answer is that it cannot. That's a simple factual statement, it does not require any assumptions about anyone involved in the process. The question always has the same answer regardless of whether Donald Knuth or Donald Trump is answering the question.
And, APK, if you want to talk to me then stop pretending like you're someone else.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Is this a Slashdot discussion or the beginning of a glorious Facebook flame war? ;)
Lol, no, it's just my pedantry run amuck from 3 cups of coffee before noon. :)
I have less bullets to wage such a battle these days, and there are fewer oxygen molecules available
Errrrrrr. Almost. Fewer bullets is the correct form, just like "fewer oxygen molecules", because they're both countable (in theory, anyway).
You can have fewer bullets, or less ammo. But not less bullets or fewer ammo. It's all about the collective aggregate in cases like this. In short, if the subject of discussion is individually countable, use "fewer". If it's a collective quantity (like gasoline or oxygen) use "less".
But, oddly enough, you can often use "more" in both countable and uncountable instances, i.e. "I have more bullets" or "I have more oxygen" are both correct as far as I'm aware.
They say that "English obeys all the rules of grammar, except when it doesn't."
For example, why do writers write but fingers don’t fing, grocers don’t groce and hammers don’t ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn’t the plural of booth beeth? In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a "wise man" and a "wise guy" are opposites? Why do we drive on the parkway but park on the driveway? Really, English makes no sense.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I guess facebook doesn't want my one login per year anymore. Nothing like spending 20 minutes per day saying happy birthday to everyone I every went to school with or worked with... not a service I need.
I accept that advertising is what supports platforms like Facebook (indeed, just about everything on the internet), but please remember the user in all of this. My computer is mine. My browser is mine. Monopolizing it while you play an irrelevant auto-play video is just not cool.
Facebook is relatively tame in this respect. I've seen worse.
...laura
Wait, are we talking about Zuckerberg or Facebook?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
There was a time when IBM was unconquerable. General Motors and General Electric as well. Facebook will eventually decline. It's certainly not expanding market share anymore. . .
...Which is why they are so very interested in getting into India and Africa.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Now for some educational programming because you should know when it's less or it's fewer like people who were never raised in a sewer.
No, ads are not "part of the experience". Yes, they are "tacked on".
What the professional liar actually means is that ads are part of the business model.
I feel like the early 1990s have returned. Anyone else remember Spamford Wallace claiming that people are genuinely interested in his "newsletter"?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Interesting observation, moreover, if they attempt to go around ab blocking software wouldn't they be guilty of breaking federal computer crime statues? I believe the wording is to the effect that you aren't allowed to view, alter or erase data on a system without permission.
Serving ads to a user might fall under the normal TOS, but attempting to bypass an ad blocker against the user's wishes would seem to meet these criteria. I am not saying that they are breaking federal law by doing this though, just opening the possibility for what would be a really interesting lawsuit to watch. Do corporations have a right to deliver content contrary to a user's wishes as part of a service? Is a furnace repair man allowed to break into my house for a monthly service?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
IF you're concerned about it, build a better tool then yourself.
I guess I'll continue using a combination of uBlock Origin, Tampermonkey and Reek's Anti-Adblock Killer to deal with the Facebook ads that APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit won't be able to block then. It's easier to use those tools than to build a new tool from the ground up myself.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
If other sites start doing this, it will help in some ways. Sure, we'll see some shitty ads, but instead of today where you use an adblocker that intercepts scripts and hides images that are loaded into the DOM after page load, all on the front end... the ads will load on the server-side and be a lot faster. Poorly implemented ads are the main reason pages take so long to load, even ad blocker can't actually stop many of them from loading, so we'll get faster sites. Sucks to have to look at ads though.
Maybe because I block the like buttons on all web sites they can't track me.
Or maybe because when I did see ads a few years ago, I reported them as offensive.
Let them try and get past my ad blockers. Yes that is plural on purpose.
You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
1- I have a minor in marketing, so I am always interested in seeing what the latest advertising trends are, who is doing what, and what techniques are being used
2- If the context and targeting is correct, ads on FB or Google's ad network can be very informative. Concerts, seminars, new products I'm interested in, news bits of subject matter I like, etc. This stuff really helps me know what is going on. What I don't like targeted car, credit card, fast food, women's douche, etc type of ads that have zero relevance to me at all.
Libertas in infinitum
Ok, so I get it, I really do. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Linked-In, etc. all are funded by advertising that is how they make their money. It is their only business model. That being said, using mobile Facebook app I find a bunch of friends posting articles with the most horrific of advertising, the worst of the worst. The Facebook app browser doesn't let you block any of it. It's near impossible to even read the article with floating popups top and bottom banners and inline ads with buttons to fool you into click next in a slide show. Most of the articles are not even worth reading. But if I do want to read it, I can open with Safari and then my adblocker engages and suddenly the article is readable! The advertising is messing with the user experience in terrible ways. Especially on mobile as the screens are small.
It's these annoying ads on mobile that are horrific. Now FB is inserting suggested content into the news feed. They are also filtering the newsfeed and messing with the order of my friends posts. I rarely use FB on a desktop browser but when I do I definitely use an adblocker.
About the only way I can see if they are going to be aggressive about this is if they start using JavaScript extensively to make it darn near impossible to decipher. They load JavaScript into the browser then feed an encrypted stream to the browser and use the script already running in the browser to decode and render the page. Add many levels of abstraction and strip all the whitespace and it will make it difficult though not entirely impossible for the adblockers to decipher. They could scramble URLs, hostnames, etc.
I think they will shoot themselves in the foot over this... It would be a nail in their coffin and they would be headed the way of MySpace in no time flat. The new generation doesn't even use FB cause it's mostly old farts on FB now and their parents.
I like keeping in touch with family and friends on FB. I keep my friends at a small tight list. But I would drop it in a heartbeat if they pull any shenanigans.
Except when it comes to blocking self-hosted ads, correct? In that case they're a good ROI.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Sounds like a great reason to ditch Facebook altogether now. It hasn't been very focussed on social networking lately anyway. Just another big data mine, using our data to generate their wealth. It's only a matter of time before they charge us for a "premium" or tiered service.
Volunteer. 95% of your "friends" on facebook are anything but that.
Speak for yourself.
100% of my Facebook friends are my actual friends. I only add people I am actually friends with, I don't add estranged relatives, casual acquaintances, workmates or random strangers. Sure I've only got 50 Facebook friends instead of 500, but they're actually friends who care about me.
As a side effect, I my news feed isn't filled with game requests and other pointless bollocks. I choose my friends well.
Facebook gives you 100% control over who you add as a "friend"... so if 95% of your friends are anything but, that is entirely your own doing.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
True. But that doesn't prevent a combined approach, does it? As in, host blocking file for most ad networks, and a set of browser plugins for the difficult sites.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
The problem is't the users, the problem is the fucking malware that you criminals insist we install on our computers as the price of viewing your shitty site.
My adblockers, script blockers, flash blockers and other protections from you are my condoms for my computer.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
He's referring to the fact that many people have friends who will *only* send an invite to an event on Facebook. You'll find out a week later that you missed event X and they'll say, "didn't you see it on Facebook??!?"
First world problem.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So we should be talking about world hunger in a thread about Facebook?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You're an idiot, APK. You can't even just admit that host-based blocking isn't the solution in every case, can you? There's something about you which is unable to even admit such things. Instead you try to change the subject. Sorry man, but hosts is not the answer all the time. Your program will not protect people from all ads while still allowing them to use the sites.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
And, my software is better than your stupid little text management program. My software is for a completely different purpose, but rest assured that it does a lot more than text sorting and filtering and file I/O. We're all impressed by your grasp of the programming basics though, believe me.
None of which changes the fact that your program is not suitable for blocking all ads. It is limited at a fundamental level. In fact, your program itself does not block ads at all, the only thing it does is write to a text file. All of the heavy lifting lies in other pieces of software, not yours.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
So we should be talking about world hunger in a thread about Facebook?
Who's talking about world hunger?
Not sure if you know what we refer to when we mention "First World Problem".That's when some advantage you might have is turned into a problem. It's when someone gets excited because someone sends an invite only over Facebook, and someone misses it because they didn't check it. Too bad that there are no other communication options other than Facebook.
It's like being upset because you want to change the channel on your television, but you have to stand up and walk to where the remote is.
Or your Escalade is too big to fit through the drive through at Starbucks, so you have to park it and walk into the store.
Or your new swimming pool makes the back yard look small.
First World problems.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Do I detect the memory of a teenager's painful conversation with a parent here? ;)
The reality of human culture is that it requires a degree of conformity if a meaningful culture is to exist. The question is whether the network effects of FB justify its adoption, and my instinct is that they do. YMMV. However if you are part of a culture in which FB is a significant means of communication, you need to do FB; we don't live in small villages where we will talk to everyone face to face any more.
It's running on several servers.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
as most sites don't serve their OWN ads
The #3 site by traffic worldwide does, though (#2 in the US, behind Google). So your software will not help block ads on a major use case for people going online, and it never will. Content inspectors will still be able to do it, host-based blocking will not. You can talk all you want about the percentage of sites, it's more informative to talk about the percentage of internet users. Your "solution" won't work for the 1.65 billion or so monthly active users who go to Facebook and don't want to see their ads.
It's a pleasure to see others
That's just you, APK. You're the only one posting. Everyone knows that. The only person you're capable of fooling is yourself.
as I have that's gone on the MS TechEd 2000-2002
That's good, keep talking about things you did more than a decade ago. Meanwhile, I am currently the highest-paid person at the company where I work, and yesterday I got a $15k bonus. So keep up with your bullshit, I'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
Have fun with your text filtering and sorting software. Maybe you should add another plus symbol or something to the name, I'm sure that will make it seem more impressive. I'll look forward to our next discussion where you talk about that one time in 2000 that someone looked at your work and thought that it was something other than an intro to computer science project.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
you'll NEVER be in my league
I know, I've already graduated from college. It's pretty hard to un-learn everything that would be required to drop me back down to your level.
as far as I'm concerned
This should be appended to all of your statements. "As far as I'm concerned". In other words, "in my opinion", which is worth precisely nothing.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Get ready for the exodus to the next startup platform that begins by "playing nice" and offering a good user experience. Goodbye Facebook, it was nice knowing you.
Ah! It's not now, I did agree previously. Hosts file ad blocking is particularly useful in low speed, low memory, low power, battery-based devices. I use hosts file ad blocking in my smartphone, for example.
In my desktop computer however, I don't notice a difference in performance. It's so fast that the difference in ROI between hosts based ad blocking and JavaScript based ad blocking cannot be perceived.
Hmm... I'm curious though: if you're against advertisements, why do you advertise APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit?
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
You're a funny guy, APK, back again with all of your posts posing as a third party. Yeah man, no one can tell that's you at all, you're just that clever.
Maybe one day I'll tell you about the deal that sees my software running on every ship in the US Navy fleet, as well as shore installations. Until then, have fun with your text management algorithms.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
You're illustrating what I find so funny about you, APK. Look at that list, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001. The only thing you cite since 2001 is a forum post that you got paid $100 for. That's still 8 years ago, you're citing a $100 forum post from 8 years ago, you think that's noteworthy enough to include on your resume. Due to how many times you bring it up, clearly your most valued achievement happened in 2000. That's 16 years ago.
And, are you even going to those links you post, or do you just hope no one will click on them? The first one goes to a page which shows your $100 award, and links to a protected page. Your "article" isn't publicly viewable. Your second link goes to a page asking if I want to buy the domain. Yeah, great reference, man. Make sure you hang onto that one.
in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too)
Yeah, it's so good that they haven't implemented it, and a follow-up later said that they will never implement it. Another great item for your resume, a suggestion you made 6 years ago that got turned down. What was your amazing suggestion? How to make a few Win32 API calls. Truly, that's groundbreaking work.
You apparently have some shareware that got occasionally mentioned in the late 90s, you once wrote a forum post that you got paid $100 for, you made some suggestions which got turned down (and an icon, I don't want to forget the icon and rob you of one of your "achievements"!), and then you wrote a glorified text sorting program which you decided to spam endlessly for some reason. This is your contribution to computing which you think is so shit-hot, you love talking about what a great programmer you are but your achievements over the past decade apparently amount to making HTTP requests, getting a response, sorting some text, and writing a file. This is year 1 computer science work, but that doesn't stop you from repeating over and over how this one time in 2000 you made a contribution to someone else's product which almost won an award at a Microsoft conference. Not your work that almost but didn't win, but their program which you probably contributed to by showing them how to make a few API calls. And you use all of this crap to portray yourself as some genius programmer. It's a giant shit facade APK. You're not fooling anyone other than yourself. Meanwhile, in that time the projects I've worked on have also been submitted for awards. We submitted in a smaller custom software category, and the judges decided to move it into the largest general technology category and then award us a gold. They awarded multiple golds, but we got one of them, and companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Intel, Cisco, etc got silvers and bronzes. But you don't see me shitting all over Slashdot trying to point out stuff like that, and you know why? Because that happened 10 years ago, I've done a lot of stuff since then and I'm not dwelling on all these old awards or whatever focusing on how great I think I am. I'm worried about the work I'm doing now, not what all I've done in the past. But hey man, you keep telling everyone about that time you got paid $100 for a forum post, because that's totally impressive to people who definitely aren't first-year computer science students. Seriously though, if you want to find people who are impressed by your "achievements" then you should really consider becoming a teacher at your local community college. You may actually be able to impress the people who show up for their intro classes. I'm not going to guarantee it, but it's at least possible.
This is what you work so hard to prove, the only thing you've proven is that you're nothing more than a paper tiger. And you probably still wonder why I refuse to identify myself and my work to you. Your opinion of me means nothing because you don't know who I am or what I work on. You talk out of your ass and act like what's coming out is pure brilliance. You're
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I prove I am YOUR SUPERIOR, easily w/ verifiable proofs
No, APK, you are not my superior. Your "proofs" are $100 forum posts, suggestions on API calls, and out-of-print magazine citations. That is not the work of a superior anything. And you can't prove your relation to me in any case without knowing the first thing about me. You don't know my age, you don't know my name, nothing. You know nothing about me, and only slightly more than nothing about programming.
YOU can't prove you've done SQUAT
The awards are right there on the wall in the conference room for everyone to see. You obviously have to know who I am first, but that's more of a "you" problem instead of a "me" problem.
Hosts work FINE on facebook right now
Are you suggesting they haven't made the change yet? Because I don't know either way. In either case, so what? Change is coming, it's coming and you're going to be obsolete, once again left to show how great you are because you once got $100 for a forum post.
Hosts have been here since, oh, 73 iirc?
So what? What are you going to do when 25%, then 50%, etc of internet traffic is going to web sites that use same-domain ads?
I've been @ this longer I can show FAR MORE that way
Yes, I understand that you're well into your 50s, and yet you're still running around here trumpeting how you suggested a change to a program that almost won an award back in 2000, and how you got paid $100 for a forum post. You are the equivalent of the high school second-string quarterback sitting in a bar telling everyone about that one time you threw a touchdown, as if anyone gives a shit about what your old washed-up has-been ass did so long ago.
I CAN prove all I want. In fact, I AM proving all I want. The sum total of what I want to prove to you about my personal or professional life is exactly zero. Your opinion is as useless and worthless as your so-called "achievements". Of course, we both know that that simple fact isn't going to stop you from claiming victory, as if you're playing a game with me where the object is to prove how shit-hot you are. I'm not playing that game, I've never been playing that game, I have no desire to play that game, but we both know that you're going to continue to prove my predictions right by going around and claiming that I can't prove this or that. You're pathetic, man. Look at you, you're in your 50s crowing about $100 for a forum post, or showing a few lines about using the Win32 API and then not having your suggestions used. Go ahead, regale us all of the tale about when you were in your late 30s and you suggested a couple changes to an application, and then that application almost won an award but didn't. Because that totally makes it sound like you've lived an amazing life, and it totally makes everyone else so jealous of your abilities.
By the way, don't think that I don't notice when you ignore me poking all of the holes in your "achievements". I realize you're ignoring those, I realize you're trying to change the subject. You're about to do it again, you're probably about to try to steer the discussion back towards host files and away from the sad catalog of your life's "work". Your resume looks like that of a college-level intern trying to get real-world experience, but yet you're in your 50s and you're trying to go around here claiming how you're so superior. You are a walking, talking joke. The sad part is that, even though you're also laughing, you don't even get the joke. Everyone is laughing, but you're laughing for a completely different reason than everyone else. Everyone else is laughing at you, not with you. Maybe stop digging and get yourself out of the hole.
Now, go ahead, prove that you have no argument by once again claiming that I can't prove anything about myself.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Yes, I was referring to my previous quote. Thanks for finding it, I wouldn't have been able to find it on my own.
To elaborate: both my old quote and my previous answer don't contradict each other. "Low speed, low memory, low power, battery-based devices" are one of the "cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources". In other words, my old quote ("case in which...") is a set, of which my previous answer ("low speed, low memory...") is a subset. And "smartphones" is a subset of "low speed, low memory...".
Ah! And I forgot to mention! I have an old EeePC, the first one, 600 MHz CPU version, running a trimmed down version of Windows XP SP-3. In it I also use hosts based ad blocking by means of Spybot S&D 1.6.2 and SpywareBlaster hosts blocking. I haven't powered up that machine in about two years though, so it's most certainly outdated.
Therefore, as you can see, I'm consistent in my opinions, and also truthful to my word.
Can you please provide the research links? I'm certainly interested.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
They are mining our personal data already. We should not have to see the ads. The fact is, Facebook is better off keeping advertising minimal so people don't put two and two together and start resenting being data mined . Facebook will not be popular with the young generations indefinitely. Younger generations generally avoid association too much with older trends. That will almost certainly happen to Facebook and a new popular social network trend will start. What will Facebook be then? Seniors hookups?
Oh lord, is slashdot really that full of old, out-of-touch people?
One of my good friends is someone I met from my swim team. We see each other in person at least twice a week. We even bought a scrabble board instead of playing on our phones because we thought that would be more fun.
You know why we're actually close, though? She went to Italy for the summer last year and we kept in touch through facebook. Through posts and through messenger.
I've got plenty of close friends, and ironically, a lot of them live a long way from me. I use every tool I have to stay in touch with them. A lot of the time that's facebook. Sometimes that's iMessage or Telegram or Twitter. Sometimes that's actually through handwritten letters on cotton paper with a calligraphy pen (yes, really--I'm a pen nerd). I don't care how I get to talk to them, I just want to see the pictures of their kids and know how their day is going.
Facebook reduces that friction for me. The ads I get on Facebook are often dumb, but they never take up the whole page, play sound without me asking or do weird things with the rendering (a la The Verge).
Don't condescend to me that my friends aren't friends just because I connect with a lot of them on Facebook during the week. I'm closer with a lot of people exactly because of Facebook.
Haha, you're onto attacks about my weight now? That's what you've come to? Let me think for a minute how much that means coming from someone who doesn't know anything about me. Which is it APK, am I flimsy or a fat chunk?
Something occurred to me when I was driving home last night, and I'd like to share it with you. I'm sure I've mentioned my age at some point on this site, so I'll say that I'm 15-16 years younger than you are. Let's think about what that means.
When you were my age, your apparent crowning achievement, based on how often you bring it up, is that you suggested some tweaks to someone else's program, which eventually became a finalist for an award that it didn't win. That's what you're so proud of achieving when you were my age. So, I look at myself, and where I am at that same point in life. I've gone from an intern while in college to a CTO, I've quintupled my income, I own my second house, drive a great car, have a nice retirement account, etc. I've gotten all of these things based solely on the quality of my work, in addition to the actual awards that were won by projects that I've had direct involvement in. I've redesigned and rebuilt this company's flagship products, I'm upgrading the infrastructure, I built the software that runs the entire business, we're getting contracts to help run entire states, and after more than a year of discussions at varies levels in the Navy we're on the last leg of finalizing the deal to get our software, that I designed and built, loaded onto every ship in the fleet and ultimately give ship commanders the ability to quickly assess the skill levels of everyone on board and figure out if there is a specialist on another ship nearby and having them sent over instead of flying in someone from the mainland at a cost of $30k per pop. Abilities that are going to be considered essential for commanders over the next couple decades, and we're on the ground floor. If I was to compare myself with your so-called achievement, that's like wiping out my resume and replacing it with statements about the people that I've helped on the programming forums that I help moderate. Forget all of the things I've achieved personally and professionally, and instead try to be proud of the guys who I have helped teach how to program or showed how to write more efficient code. I can't imagine being at this point in my life and only having minor things like that to be proud of. And what about 8 years from now? What if I'm 45 and I call up my friends being so proud because someone paid me $100 for a forum post? What if that's the major thing I can show when I'm 45? Holy hell man, I can't even imagine how far I would have to fall professionally in order for something like that to be a highlight. But, there you are, laying out these "achievements" in some misguided attempt to prove that you are superior to me. It's a joke. You're a bullshit artist. Just like when you tried to misrepresent your relationship with Russinovich, now you're trying to claim someone else's program becoming a finalist as your own achievement. You're trying to show a $100 forum post at the age of 45 or so as a reason why I should look up to you. It is stunningly pathetic.
Hosts work on facebook (just tested it) too
So what? Facebook announced 2 days ago that they are going to change how their ads are shown. You're telling me they haven't made that change yet? Who fucking cares? You're the buggy whip manufacturer sitting there with your fingers in your ears refusing to acknowledge the force of progress, just being proud about how great your buggy whip is. Host-based blocking is on the way out. I didn't say that Facebook has already made the change, and I don't see a date for the switch either. I don't care when they make the change, it doesn't matter to me. It should matter to you and your claims of "host blocking is so much better than anything else", but I don't really care when they make the change.
Nope... 1st stri
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If you want to continue the discussion then drop the third party act and post as yourself. And, if that was your actual question, you worded it poorly. The reason you choose to show more of your work is because I value anonymity and you don't. What's unfortunate is the poor substance of the work that you choose to show, but I guess that's your choice, just like it is my choice to maintain the relative anonymity.
Way to ignore my entire post though. If you're going to pretend like you're someone else and ignore what I say then I'll take that as an admission of loss and move on.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Are you being obtuse on purpose now? Here, let me copy and paste the answer:
The reason you choose to show more of your work is because I value anonymity and you don't.
There you go.
At this point, you're ignoring my other points, ignoring my answer to your question (which you ask every time we talk, and apparently never understand), and you're pretending to be someone else. I'll consider that an admission of defeat on your part. Way to represent yourself. A 52 year old guy who once tweaked a program, once got paid $100 for a forum post, and who acts like he's someone else. You're really driving home that superiority claim.
Once again, a discussion with you has devolved to the point where it's only pathetic. It's interesting how often discussions with you do that, isn't it?
Take care big guy, best of luck with your text sorting program. Way to go on that whole NCAA thing back in "your day", too bad those are so far behind you though.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Phone solicitors are asking the government to make it illegal to hang up on them or refuse to answer the phone. TV advertisers are asking the government to address the problem of viewers deciding to go to the bathroom during commercial breaks and claim to be losing millions as a result. They also want DRM technology that would prohibit someone from skipping over commercials on recorded TV programs.
the people who use ad blocking software to prevent drive by download attacks from ads and people with a slow bandwidth connection such as 1.5 Mbps from Centurylink (no other ISP to choose from in their area) who have to give up some of their bandwidth in order to view advertisements? What about people with limited data and will be charged extra if they go over an allotted bandwidth?
I use an active HOSTS file loaded with all known ad domains and servers, plus ABP.
If you keep that HOSTS file up to date, that may take care of FB's idiocy.
Or any other greedy website for that matter.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.