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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why is it necessary for the EU to even have privacy laws? Are privacy laws the only laws that are never broken? Has no one ever been charged with violating one of those laws? What about laws against selling drugs, does the EU have those also? Are those ever broken?
They also claim to have 'biilions of photographs from private companies with license plate scanners'. Kind of doubtful, companies don't give that info away for free, and why would they buy it if they don't need it.
They buy it because it helps their goals, whatever those are. It can't be that expensive, it's just manual labor and a little data processing. Someone with a multi-directional camera mounted on their vehicle just drives around and the camera records the location of every license plate it finds. We've seen those vehicles driving through our parking lot. It's not that they're reaching out to private businesses and asking them for their license plate data, they hire private contractors to drive around and get that data and send it to them.
Wait, what do you mean *when* you drop it? Why do I have to drop my computer? Why can't I be one of those people who somehow manages to make it through life without dropping important expensive fragile machines? Speaking of which, even if the case is still in one piece, is the rest of the hardware still working? How often do you drop your computer, what kind of heights are we talking about?
wait, why exactly does the case material matter? Serious question. I feel like I'm missing out on some sort of hidden benefit because I'm using a well-powered laptop with a plastic case. What am I missing out on?
I was always told that it's what's inside that counts.
I think Hillary knows exactly what she's saying, what it means, and why she's saying it. I also think she knows exactly what she wants and what she's going to do. Those things aren't necessarily the same, she might know that she's going to do something and know that she's lying about what she's going to do, but I think Hillary is far more self-aware than Trump is. Hillary does actually have well thought-out positions, even if she lies about what they are. Trump lives in his own narcissistic fantasy world where he's always right, Hillary tries to change reality to suit her (or, at a minimum, make sure that what she's doing stays hidden).
Of course, none of what I said is a reason to vote for either person, and neither of them should be president. If you're one of those partisan idiots who decided that any criticism about Trump should be countered with "what about Hillary", then you need to re-evaluate who you're voting for and why. There are more than 2 choices in this election, and unless you're an unhinged narcissistic sociopath or a member of the 1% then the two major party candidates do not represent you. There are other parties and candidates who deserve your vote more than the parties that have managed to nominate the two most-disliked candidates in the history of polling.
btw, do you think 'most-disliked' is particularly indicative of whether someone will win an election or not?
In a sane and rational and just world, it should be. But when you have the two most-disliked candidates going against each other, who the hell knows. I predict that Hillary will give Trump enough rope to hang himself with, which he'll do while claiming for the next 3 months that the entire process is rigged, Hillary will win once Trump alienates many of his remaining supporters who decide to just stay home, and then the rest of his supporters will rage out on Hillary and the rest of the country for rigging the system against Trump before China and Russia mercifully nuke us all.
I'll say with a straight face that I would not even be surprised if a third-party candidate won. Well, I might be a little bit surprised, but not in an unbelieving way. I would be surprised at the rationality of voters, but not that the person won.
Here's another interesting fact: the largest group of people who responded to polls saying that they were going to vote for either Trump or Clinton cited as their reason that they wanted to defeat the other person. It was less than half, but more than the number of people who said they wanted that person to win. So there are more people voting for each candidate just to keep the other one out than there are hoping that person gets elected. That's the world we live in, those are the choices that the system has shat out in front of us. Both parties have managed to nominate the worst person they could (in the eyes of most of the country, anyway). The Republicans couldn't keep Trump out and the Democrats gave Clinton the express lane, but we're in a race to the bottom here. The candidate who wins is probably going to be the one who talks the least.
In that case, it would have been Trump vs Cruz, or Trump vs Rubio, maybe Trump vs Christie (America apparently has enough sanity that it wouldn't have been Trump vs Bush). That seems like an election he could won in this hypothetical world.
Haha, I really don't know. Would Trump have beaten Cruz? I don't think so, I bet that any of those candidates would have the full backing of the party (as opposed to Trump) and they would get their people out in force to make sure he doesn't get elected. We have other Republicans today saying that they are going to vote for Hillary to make sure Trump doesn't win. That's insane. A Republican voting for Hillary is insane. Surely those people wouldn't think twice about voting for Cruz in order to beat Trump.
I don't think his strong dislike is all that partisan, i.e. I don't think he's strongly disliked because he's running as a Republican. People just don't really like him.
Well, I don't know, it might be true. Trump and Clinton are the #1 and #2 most-disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling. I'm not sure who else would both win a nomination and also lose to either of them.
Right, Clinton won, at least here in Arizona. I assume she did, anyway. I heard from a lot of people who tried to vote but weren't able to. I guess the Department of Justice's investigation of voter suppression will help clear that up. In any case, I'm sure that it was just an isolated incident.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
It's running on several servers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why is it necessary for the EU to even have privacy laws? Are privacy laws the only laws that are never broken? Has no one ever been charged with violating one of those laws? What about laws against selling drugs, does the EU have those also? Are those ever broken?
They also claim to have 'biilions of photographs from private companies with license plate scanners'. Kind of doubtful, companies don't give that info away for free, and why would they buy it if they don't need it.
They buy it because it helps their goals, whatever those are. It can't be that expensive, it's just manual labor and a little data processing. Someone with a multi-directional camera mounted on their vehicle just drives around and the camera records the location of every license plate it finds. We've seen those vehicles driving through our parking lot. It's not that they're reaching out to private businesses and asking them for their license plate data, they hire private contractors to drive around and get that data and send it to them.
Right, you're "just asking questions."
Ha, you're declaring victory there? OK buddy. Have a great day.
I have a better idea. Let's design our computers so that they can't be upgraded.
Almost every website you go to now, even sites like CNN, CBS, Forbes, etc., have clickbait ads.
I bet they also wonder why people use ad blockers. You don't have to see those ads, you know.
I share clickbait headlines all the time because I think they're funny.
You're the one, huh?
Oh. I see.
Wait, what do you mean *when* you drop it? Why do I have to drop my computer? Why can't I be one of those people who somehow manages to make it through life without dropping important expensive fragile machines? Speaking of which, even if the case is still in one piece, is the rest of the hardware still working? How often do you drop your computer, what kind of heights are we talking about?
How many laptops have aluminum cases?
Well, yeah, I guess there aren't a ton of ...
wait, why exactly does the case material matter? Serious question. I feel like I'm missing out on some sort of hidden benefit because I'm using a well-powered laptop with a plastic case. What am I missing out on?
I was always told that it's what's inside that counts.
I'd hardly call Retina Display merely a cosmetic difference.
I think that's actually the definition of a cosmetic difference. Same thing, but looks better.
I think Hillary knows exactly what she's saying, what it means, and why she's saying it. I also think she knows exactly what she wants and what she's going to do. Those things aren't necessarily the same, she might know that she's going to do something and know that she's lying about what she's going to do, but I think Hillary is far more self-aware than Trump is. Hillary does actually have well thought-out positions, even if she lies about what they are. Trump lives in his own narcissistic fantasy world where he's always right, Hillary tries to change reality to suit her (or, at a minimum, make sure that what she's doing stays hidden).
Of course, none of what I said is a reason to vote for either person, and neither of them should be president. If you're one of those partisan idiots who decided that any criticism about Trump should be countered with "what about Hillary", then you need to re-evaluate who you're voting for and why. There are more than 2 choices in this election, and unless you're an unhinged narcissistic sociopath or a member of the 1% then the two major party candidates do not represent you. There are other parties and candidates who deserve your vote more than the parties that have managed to nominate the two most-disliked candidates in the history of polling.
btw, do you think 'most-disliked' is particularly indicative of whether someone will win an election or not?
In a sane and rational and just world, it should be. But when you have the two most-disliked candidates going against each other, who the hell knows. I predict that Hillary will give Trump enough rope to hang himself with, which he'll do while claiming for the next 3 months that the entire process is rigged, Hillary will win once Trump alienates many of his remaining supporters who decide to just stay home, and then the rest of his supporters will rage out on Hillary and the rest of the country for rigging the system against Trump before China and Russia mercifully nuke us all.
I'll say with a straight face that I would not even be surprised if a third-party candidate won. Well, I might be a little bit surprised, but not in an unbelieving way. I would be surprised at the rationality of voters, but not that the person won.
Here's another interesting fact: the largest group of people who responded to polls saying that they were going to vote for either Trump or Clinton cited as their reason that they wanted to defeat the other person. It was less than half, but more than the number of people who said they wanted that person to win. So there are more people voting for each candidate just to keep the other one out than there are hoping that person gets elected. That's the world we live in, those are the choices that the system has shat out in front of us. Both parties have managed to nominate the worst person they could (in the eyes of most of the country, anyway). The Republicans couldn't keep Trump out and the Democrats gave Clinton the express lane, but we're in a race to the bottom here. The candidate who wins is probably going to be the one who talks the least.
In that case, it would have been Trump vs Cruz, or Trump vs Rubio, maybe Trump vs Christie (America apparently has enough sanity that it wouldn't have been Trump vs Bush). That seems like an election he could won in this hypothetical world.
Haha, I really don't know. Would Trump have beaten Cruz? I don't think so, I bet that any of those candidates would have the full backing of the party (as opposed to Trump) and they would get their people out in force to make sure he doesn't get elected. We have other Republicans today saying that they are going to vote for Hillary to make sure Trump doesn't win. That's insane. A Republican voting for Hillary is insane. Surely those people wouldn't think twice about voting for Cruz in order to beat Trump.
I don't think his strong dislike is all that partisan, i.e. I don't think he's strongly disliked because he's running as a Republican. People just don't really like him.
How do you do a movie about insane criminals and keep it PG-13?
Easy. Just stuff in all the violence you can manage, but don't show any nipples.
Well, I don't know, it might be true. Trump and Clinton are the #1 and #2 most-disliked candidates in the history of presidential polling. I'm not sure who else would both win a nomination and also lose to either of them.
Yes I know, just like saying that they've defeated other opponents doesn't translate at all to a presidential election.
Right, Clinton won, at least here in Arizona. I assume she did, anyway. I heard from a lot of people who tried to vote but weren't able to. I guess the Department of Justice's investigation of voter suppression will help clear that up. In any case, I'm sure that it was just an isolated incident.
I don't think corruption should be much of a guiding factor.
If a lot of people agree with you, then I suppose that explains Clinton's popularity.
I can only assume he's either a fucking lunatic, or he really is a Democrat plant intent on tearing the still-beating heart out of the Republicans.
Occam is on line 1 for you.