Keep it up loser, you are making my week with this shit, it is the most hilarious reading ever.
No joke! Sometimes at night I have to be careful not to laugh so loud at APK that I disturb others in the building.
You remember that South Park episode about hybrid cars? The way people became so smug that they spoke with their eyes closed and bent down to sniff their own farts? That's APK! But he didn't need a hybrid vehicle to do it. He just needed to write a dinky little string manipulation program that outputs a text file, his life's work, his magnum opus.
The hilarious part was he objected to me providing my OPINION that he may have mental problems, crying about how I'm not a shrink, etc (it obviously struck a nerve, something he is so quick to reveal) and then he accusses you of having Asperger's (while insulting those who really do suffer from this disease by rendering it "assburgers")! He appears to be unable to grasp his own hypocrisy. Priceless!
An AC above (in the first thread) mentioned the hilarity of intentionally summoning him. Sometimes I do that myself. He usually appears right on cue. And probably thinks it's his own idea when he does. I wonder how upset he'll get when he realizes that I (among others) have done that intentionally? I'm sure he will deny it and brag about how smart he is or something. Hilarious.
He's either a profoundly fucked up individual or the most masterful method actor the world has ever seen.
Which he claims to be because of a sockpuppet conspiracy!
It couldn't be because it is offtopic, troll, and redundant crap that no one cares about...no it has to be a conspiracy!
At present, I count seven very long, wall-of-words posts he wrote in response to you (that is, to this one post). Of course I didn't bother reading them. I just noted that they were there.
I believe you struck a nerve! A very nice, inflamed, tender, sensitive nerve. Being so simple and single-minded, lashing out is the only way he knows to respond to that. Look how desperately he struggles with paragraph after paragraph, trying to dilute and drown out your simple succinct truth.
Seldom have I seen a bigger and more pathetic coward than APK. Your words obviously got to him. If he were half as clever as he thinks he is, he would have been careful not to let that show. It never occurs to him that when he spams this site, it's just a noise to us, but when we put him in his place, it really gets under his skin. Yet he continues. It's amazing.
Please, keep up the good work. For a while there I felt like the only one. I mean, not really, but sometimes it sort of seemed that way.
P.S.=> Thanks for pointing them out to me - I'll just repost them + exhaust the downmodders modpoints... I have NO LIMITS on my post counts (unlike most acs here)... apk
So you are basically a guest on a site owned by someone else, and rather than respecting their rules, you openly brag about circumventing them.
What follows is my opinion. Got that? Will I need to spell that out for you later? Because you can read it right now.
This is who you are. A whiny, spamming, immature, psychotic, obsessive-compulsive pest. Daddy didn't love you enough? Is that your problem? Maybe the kids at school bullied you and picked on you and now you're gonna show us all how clever you are? Perhaps the woman you loved didn't know you existed? Or she divorced you because she couldn't take your obsessive-compulsive shit anymore? Maybe you had a nice cushy job but you treated your co-workers like shit and got fired for being an asshole who didn't understand the concept of a team?
That's about the level of respect you're showing for this site and its users. You're such a pathetic sack of shit. Seriously I'm so glad I am nothing like you. Rather than trying so hard to be where you're not wanted and not appreciated, find someplace where you are valued. If there is no such place, man up and do some god damned soul-searching until you realize how fucked in the head you are, and then get some help.
Now, go convince yourself I'm just "jealous" of your "amazing wit and talent". Convince yourself you "really outwitted me, yeah got me so good, damn I didn't even know what verbally hit me." Make a big deal of how I use a pseudonym and pretend like my words are somehow less true because of it. Whatever the fuck you have to tell yourself to avoid crying yourself to sleep every night. Defense mechanisms are the domain of true cowards like you.
I really wasn't trying to be condescending or anything, it's just that we see APK's posts on host files so often that you literally have to be new to Slashdot to not know about APK. Although I do admit he's been posting a lot less lately, but sometimes he wrote his wall-of-text posts several times in the same discussion.
In my opinion...
The funny thing is, when APK goes nuts and posts these huge walls of text, I just keep hitting PAGE DOWN until I see someone else's post. While he may think he's "speaking louder" by being an obnoxious ass, he's acutally causing me to ignore almost everything he says. I truly doubt I'm alone in that.
That's a lot of text. I am a very fast typist and it would take me a significant investment of time to a) type that much and b) get a bunch of proxies [or whatever it is he does] to get around the Slashdot posting limits. Hell, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he won't open-source his hosts program because it includes a backdoor, allowing him to use other peoples' computers as HTTP proxies so he can spam Slashdot. I can't say whether or not this is true, but I can definitely 100% say that it wouldn't surprise me and in fact, it would explain a lot. He certainly does appear to have something to hide, since a guy working in security should be aware that security through obscurity is automatically suspect.
Anyway, normal people understand that folks on the internet will say things they don't agree with. Normal people would have better things to do than waste all of that time and effort overreacting to someone who disagrees with them. In my opinion (you see that part, APK?) the man is not remotely normal at all.
It's amusing how he will write 20x more words than we do. We can expend the slightest effort posting our honest opinions and he goes nuts, expending tremendously more effort than we did. He doesn't seem to understand how he puts himself at a disadvantage. He really seems to believe that if he just repeats himself hard enough, somehow his false views will become righteous.
I appreciate the sanity you are contributing to this discussion. You are raising the signal-to-noise ratio that APK keeps obsessively trying to lower and that's a respectable act. I hope you keep up the good work!
Actually I clearly said "in my opinion". It's right there in the first part of the first paragraph, in case your reading comprehension has failed. I also said "I believe he may have" followed by ".. should find a qualified therapist". Libel doesn't apply to opinions, but of course you already knew that. You just enjoy raising a stink when you know you're cornered.
Isn't it funny how nothing in your reply actually rebuts any part of my post? You falsely cry about libel when I was giving a clearly labeled opinion, you call me a worm, and you quote the Bible. You haven't replied to a word I said, not really. If you're afraid to do so, I understand. This is how most childish people react when they know someone else is right but they can't stand it. Oh, and if I thought I were a shrink, I would have provided something more than my personal opinion. I didn't do that. Instead, I said you should FIND a qualified therapist. That way someone who really is a shrink can diagnose you.
If you're too cowardly to actually tell me what I said that was wrong, that's okay. It's what I expected. You have only validated my expectations. I notice you aren't celebrating your "great victory" this time. You can't win them all, APK, and you clearly lost this time. Act like an adult and be a good sport. For once. Just to see how it feels.
(Security researchers & even antivirus programs are being 'targetted for termination' by the spy agencies + GOOGLE CHROME was abused to create malware as well - that's ontop of my code is MY CODE as you noted - I don't "give away" my HARD WORK to others so they can steal it & claim it as "their own" (goes on like mad too due to "Open SORES")).
Did you seriously think that a state-sponsored spy agency doesn't have the talent and the virtually unlimited funding to disassemble a program of interest and look for vulnerabilities the hard way?
Precisely how do you suppose pirate groups keep successfully cracking elaborate copy protection/DRM schemes? Did you think they were given source? No. They weren't. And those tend to be rag-tag groups with nothing like the talent and resources of government agencies. Often they are simply individuals running commodity hardware who enjoy showing off their skills.
All you are accomplishing is to allow said "spy agencies" to pick your program apart at will while denying well-intentioned users the ability to audit it for themselves. That's it. Once you're talking about anything like the NSA, source is merely a minor convenience. If pirate groups can find vulnerabilities in well-funded DRM schemes published by billion-dollar corporations, imagine what NSA can do to an anti-virus program when its major modes of operation (signatures and heuristics) are already known.
(Plus - it's also the reason why AVAST won't give up their source to governments who have been KNOWN to try subvert antivirus programs especially (device drivers kernelmode level access privelege is why - subvert those wares using that, you have the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM & it's done to find exploits in those antivirus programs or other security wares)
Yes that's known as "security through obscurity" which is definitely an oxymoron. This isn't opinion and it's not debatable. Security through obscurity isn't security at all.
A program for which you have the source and still cannot successfully attack is a truly secure program. Especially for security-oriented software, anything less is unacceptable. You can try to attack a default OpenBSD setup if you don't believe me...
Windows Defender in Windows 8 and later treats.../etc/hosts as a protected file [slashdot.org] because some malware has operated by redirecting facebook.com to a phishing site. If you want to manage the hosts file yourself, exclude it from Windows Defender.
Perhaps I'm a little old-school on this topic... but if malware has already been introduced into your system, to the point where it can execute code and overwrite system files, you're already compromised. You have no certainty about what else it has done or could do. You can never trust that system again until you format (better, securely wipe) and re-install from known-good media.
Thus, to me, this feature of Windows Defender seems useless and likely to interfere with legitimate configuration, as we're seeing now. Windows Defender and Windows systems in general seem to encourage the acceptance of system compromises that really should be a game-over scenario, I guess because it's more "convenient" that way.
I never doubted that a good hosts file is useful. I have used one myself since about nineteen or twenty years ago when I first discovered Linux. At that time, I was unaware of any good browser add-ons for blocking ads, though I did use the Junkbuster proxy (a local filtering HTTP proxy). I could be wrong but I believe this was before your program existed, or at least before you promoted it by spamming Slashdot.
The only real differences between your advice and mine: I only give mine when either directly asked, or when blocking advertisements is relevant to the discussion; and for me this is not a religious issue. I don't invest my concepts of self-worth or self-esteem into methods of blocking unwanted sites. I use multiple overlapping tools to get the combined benefits of each.
I find the performance of my system (including my browser) to be more than acceptable and I like the experience I have when using it. I also accept that someone else might have different goals and might be more satisfied with a different setup. I can accept that because it's supported by real-world observation and because again, this isn't a religious issue for me. I have no need to win converts and I don't care about treating others as heretics. It's called emotional security, and it's at least as important as host security. For me the important thing is that we all have the ability to customize things as we please.
I'm glad you are getting positive feedback about your hosts program. It sounds like those users are pleased with you, and to that degree you've done them a nice service. I just wish you'd grow up a little. That's all. If you need to hate me for saying that, I understand, but I hope you don't.
In my opinion, APK is a (sometimes amusing) pest and likely psychotic, routinely manifesting signs of potential obsessive compulsive behavior and a tremendous need to appear clever and "right" in the eyes of others, to the point of routinely patting himself on the back and celebrating "victories" regarding matters of preference and opinion.
One could speculate that his parents (or other caregivers) failed to give him the level of affection and validation he required when growing up and he is forever trying to fill this hole in his soul by spamming, acting obnoxious, seeking agreement, and making other pleas for attention. It would explain a lot. I assume he'll continue to follow my posts and respond to each one of them for a while (again), now that I've said this. He clearly has a lot of rage and has difficulty simply disagreeing with someone. Instead, he has to stalk them for days, long after a normal well-adjusted person would have let the matter go, because he really cannot stand it when someone makes a point he cannot easily rebut. Like I said, I believe he may have psychological problems and should seek the help of a qualified therapist.
Anyway, a more reasonable person uses hosts files when they are the correct tool for the job, frequently combining them with a good ad blocker in order to gain the multiple layers that good security demands. A more reasonable person does not treat this as a religious issue. A reasonable person plans for anticipated threat scenarios, decides what level of risk is acceptable, selects the right tools for the job, and uses them in combination to produce the desired result. No spamming or obsession is needed.
For the majority not reading the article, it is the article that mistakenly mentions atoms of graphite (instead of carbon), the summary is just quoting the mistake
Graphite is a form of carbon. Diamond is a form of carbon. Baryonic matter in general is made of atoms (okay, if you REALLY enjoy being anal [Freud would be pleased], the electrons are leptons). Since it didn't say "atoms of the element graphite", I don't see the problem here, other than your (and others') urge to be pedantic. Yes, they could have said "molecules of graphite", but still, there are much more egregious examples of shitty writing in the summary -- the kind a minimally-competent editor would have corrected -- if you enjoy pointing out that sort of thing.
Look at the times though....both of those phones were charged to ~50% in five minutes. That's some fast charging. (Why didn't they report the time to a total charge? I don't know).
It's standard marketing procedure to recognize a weak point and pretend like it doesn't exist, being careful never to voluntarily mention it. I don't know if that's what happened here, but Huawei is a corporation with a Marketing department, and this is such a widespread practice as to be my default assumption unless compelling independent evidence to the contrary is presented.
Well, it's certainly part of being an asshole to concentrate on something like 1/6th of what I wrote to, in a round about way, call me a douchebag.
Actually if I ever desire to resort to calling you names, I'll do it openly and unambiguously. You won't have to figure out any implications or read between any lines to invent it. That you insist on taking it this way and refuse to consider that you may have misunderstood me is beyond my control.
My point was that the practice you mentioned, while not inherently illegitimate, is so often mis-used by people (other than yourself) who act like douchebags that perhaps it wasn't the best example you could have chosen. It's the difference between a denotation and a connotation, and in this case the connotation has become negative, as though it's in the early stages of what happened to terms like "hacker".
It's part of the reason that people say things like 'data is not the plural of anecdote'.
... so it's part of being a douchebag and regurgitating trite sayings in an effort to sound intelligent instead of actually contributing to the discussion by putting forth one's own well developed views?
Not that it isn't or couldn't be a worthy thing to remember, but that's not usually the way that one is used.
Most people just want to use their browser. Almost everyone I know uses Firefox mostly because IE sucked so much in the past. And they do not play around with themes. They might install icon sets, but only at home.
I know geeks like to configure everything and that is OK , but it is not what matters for the majority of users.
And no I do not want to use the Google sees it all tool for obvious reasons.
The great number of useful extensions is my own main reason for using Firefox. I also have Chromium and Konqueror installed but I hardly ever use them.
The Web is just too shitty of a general experience to use any browser without a good ad blocker. The many, many other available extensions is just icing on the cake.
You are wise in the way of the little old lady with her cup of change and vacant look in her eyes as she plies the glittering lights of Vegas. I've seen her, in the distance, but I dare not approach. I prefer table gaming, of course.
As long as you know when to double down, blackjack has the most favorable odds of anything you'll find in a casino.
I wonder if the FCC might have something to say about effectively jamming a communication signal, even if it is your own TV that you're jamming.
And if such a thing happens, I'll bet you that, somewhere in the 95 page EULA for your new TV is buried a clause that says, "You agree that you will not interfere with communications from this TV to the manufacturer".
Yet if it's an extremely short-range equivalent of a null route, precisely how would they detect that this is happening? Against what would they contrast their total lack of a connection of any sort? Just a hypothetical of course.
While the marketers have many flaws, unfortunately stupidity isn't one of them.
Disable your ad blocker and see how stupid marketers really are, repeatedly advertising something you searched for and bought a couple of weeks ago.
I admit, you got me there. It never once occurred to me to ever disable my ad blocker for any reason. I guess I'll extend some credibility and take your word for it. I am unwilling to actually put your proposal to the test. My ad blocker remains on. Yet you make an interesting claim.
Yes, though we used (and sheltered) many more Nazis than is generally known, even to those familiar with Project Paperclip.
Wait... Clippy is a Nazi spy?
Yes, apparently his Diabolical Evil Plan was to systematically destroy the reading comprehension of people like you. Or to cause you to make lame jokes.
Nah, it's all legit as long as you hire a hit-man from another country. At least that's what I was told.
As long as hiring any hit man is illegal where you perform this act, I really do doubt this would be a legitimate legal defense. But then, IANAL. But I really, seriously wouldn't try it.
Changing channels was also extremely slow: about 2 seconds between stations. TWO WHOLE SECONDS.
That's actually pretty normal for digital channels, because it takes time to decode enough of the stream to show a picture. But if it does that when switching analog channels, that's unacceptable.
Makes me wonder how much shorter the delay would be if the device didn't have to bother with useless HDCP, any other encryption, and copyright flags.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep it up loser, you are making my week with this shit, it is the most hilarious reading ever.
No joke! Sometimes at night I have to be careful not to laugh so loud at APK that I disturb others in the building.
You remember that South Park episode about hybrid cars? The way people became so smug that they spoke with their eyes closed and bent down to sniff their own farts? That's APK! But he didn't need a hybrid vehicle to do it. He just needed to write a dinky little string manipulation program that outputs a text file, his life's work, his magnum opus.
The hilarious part was he objected to me providing my OPINION that he may have mental problems, crying about how I'm not a shrink, etc (it obviously struck a nerve, something he is so quick to reveal) and then he accusses you of having Asperger's (while insulting those who really do suffer from this disease by rendering it "assburgers")! He appears to be unable to grasp his own hypocrisy. Priceless!
An AC above (in the first thread) mentioned the hilarity of intentionally summoning him. Sometimes I do that myself. He usually appears right on cue. And probably thinks it's his own idea when he does. I wonder how upset he'll get when he realizes that I (among others) have done that intentionally? I'm sure he will deny it and brag about how smart he is or something. Hilarious.
He's either a profoundly fucked up individual or the most masterful method actor the world has ever seen.
Which he claims to be because of a sockpuppet conspiracy!
It couldn't be because it is offtopic, troll, and redundant crap that no one cares about...no it has to be a conspiracy!
At present, I count seven very long, wall-of-words posts he wrote in response to you (that is, to this one post). Of course I didn't bother reading them. I just noted that they were there.
I believe you struck a nerve! A very nice, inflamed, tender, sensitive nerve. Being so simple and single-minded, lashing out is the only way he knows to respond to that. Look how desperately he struggles with paragraph after paragraph, trying to dilute and drown out your simple succinct truth.
Seldom have I seen a bigger and more pathetic coward than APK. Your words obviously got to him. If he were half as clever as he thinks he is, he would have been careful not to let that show. It never occurs to him that when he spams this site, it's just a noise to us, but when we put him in his place, it really gets under his skin. Yet he continues. It's amazing.
Please, keep up the good work. For a while there I felt like the only one. I mean, not really, but sometimes it sort of seemed that way.
P.S.=> Thanks for pointing them out to me - I'll just repost them + exhaust the downmodders modpoints... I have NO LIMITS on my post counts (unlike most acs here)... apk
So you are basically a guest on a site owned by someone else, and rather than respecting their rules, you openly brag about circumventing them.
What follows is my opinion. Got that? Will I need to spell that out for you later? Because you can read it right now.
This is who you are. A whiny, spamming, immature, psychotic, obsessive-compulsive pest. Daddy didn't love you enough? Is that your problem? Maybe the kids at school bullied you and picked on you and now you're gonna show us all how clever you are? Perhaps the woman you loved didn't know you existed? Or she divorced you because she couldn't take your obsessive-compulsive shit anymore? Maybe you had a nice cushy job but you treated your co-workers like shit and got fired for being an asshole who didn't understand the concept of a team?
That's about the level of respect you're showing for this site and its users. You're such a pathetic sack of shit. Seriously I'm so glad I am nothing like you. Rather than trying so hard to be where you're not wanted and not appreciated, find someplace where you are valued. If there is no such place, man up and do some god damned soul-searching until you realize how fucked in the head you are, and then get some help.
Now, go convince yourself I'm just "jealous" of your "amazing wit and talent". Convince yourself you "really outwitted me, yeah got me so good, damn I didn't even know what verbally hit me." Make a big deal of how I use a pseudonym and pretend like my words are somehow less true because of it. Whatever the fuck you have to tell yourself to avoid crying yourself to sleep every night. Defense mechanisms are the domain of true cowards like you.
I really wasn't trying to be condescending or anything, it's just that we see APK's posts on host files so often that you literally have to be new to Slashdot to not know about APK. Although I do admit he's been posting a lot less lately, but sometimes he wrote his wall-of-text posts several times in the same discussion.
In my opinion...
The funny thing is, when APK goes nuts and posts these huge walls of text, I just keep hitting PAGE DOWN until I see someone else's post. While he may think he's "speaking louder" by being an obnoxious ass, he's acutally causing me to ignore almost everything he says. I truly doubt I'm alone in that.
Look, they found what causes your delusions of grandeur!
http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
Maybe they will finally find a cure.
Wow. Look at all of those replies he posted.
That's a lot of text. I am a very fast typist and it would take me a significant investment of time to a) type that much and b) get a bunch of proxies [or whatever it is he does] to get around the Slashdot posting limits. Hell, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he won't open-source his hosts program because it includes a backdoor, allowing him to use other peoples' computers as HTTP proxies so he can spam Slashdot. I can't say whether or not this is true, but I can definitely 100% say that it wouldn't surprise me and in fact, it would explain a lot. He certainly does appear to have something to hide, since a guy working in security should be aware that security through obscurity is automatically suspect.
Anyway, normal people understand that folks on the internet will say things they don't agree with. Normal people would have better things to do than waste all of that time and effort overreacting to someone who disagrees with them. In my opinion (you see that part, APK?) the man is not remotely normal at all.
It's amusing how he will write 20x more words than we do. We can expend the slightest effort posting our honest opinions and he goes nuts, expending tremendously more effort than we did. He doesn't seem to understand how he puts himself at a disadvantage. He really seems to believe that if he just repeats himself hard enough, somehow his false views will become righteous.
I appreciate the sanity you are contributing to this discussion. You are raising the signal-to-noise ratio that APK keeps obsessively trying to lower and that's a respectable act. I hope you keep up the good work!
Actually I clearly said "in my opinion". It's right there in the first part of the first paragraph, in case your reading comprehension has failed. I also said "I believe he may have" followed by ".. should find a qualified therapist". Libel doesn't apply to opinions, but of course you already knew that. You just enjoy raising a stink when you know you're cornered.
Isn't it funny how nothing in your reply actually rebuts any part of my post? You falsely cry about libel when I was giving a clearly labeled opinion, you call me a worm, and you quote the Bible. You haven't replied to a word I said, not really. If you're afraid to do so, I understand. This is how most childish people react when they know someone else is right but they can't stand it. Oh, and if I thought I were a shrink, I would have provided something more than my personal opinion. I didn't do that. Instead, I said you should FIND a qualified therapist. That way someone who really is a shrink can diagnose you.
If you're too cowardly to actually tell me what I said that was wrong, that's okay. It's what I expected. You have only validated my expectations. I notice you aren't celebrating your "great victory" this time. You can't win them all, APK, and you clearly lost this time. Act like an adult and be a good sport. For once. Just to see how it feels.
Have a nice day!
(Security researchers & even antivirus programs are being 'targetted for termination' by the spy agencies + GOOGLE CHROME was abused to create malware as well - that's ontop of my code is MY CODE as you noted - I don't "give away" my HARD WORK to others so they can steal it & claim it as "their own" (goes on like mad too due to "Open SORES")).
Did you seriously think that a state-sponsored spy agency doesn't have the talent and the virtually unlimited funding to disassemble a program of interest and look for vulnerabilities the hard way?
Precisely how do you suppose pirate groups keep successfully cracking elaborate copy protection/DRM schemes? Did you think they were given source? No. They weren't. And those tend to be rag-tag groups with nothing like the talent and resources of government agencies. Often they are simply individuals running commodity hardware who enjoy showing off their skills.
All you are accomplishing is to allow said "spy agencies" to pick your program apart at will while denying well-intentioned users the ability to audit it for themselves. That's it. Once you're talking about anything like the NSA, source is merely a minor convenience. If pirate groups can find vulnerabilities in well-funded DRM schemes published by billion-dollar corporations, imagine what NSA can do to an anti-virus program when its major modes of operation (signatures and heuristics) are already known.
(Plus - it's also the reason why AVAST won't give up their source to governments who have been KNOWN to try subvert antivirus programs especially (device drivers kernelmode level access privelege is why - subvert those wares using that, you have the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM & it's done to find exploits in those antivirus programs or other security wares)
Yes that's known as "security through obscurity" which is definitely an oxymoron. This isn't opinion and it's not debatable. Security through obscurity isn't security at all.
A program for which you have the source and still cannot successfully attack is a truly secure program. Especially for security-oriented software, anything less is unacceptable. You can try to attack a default OpenBSD setup if you don't believe me...
Windows Defender in Windows 8 and later treats .../etc/hosts as a protected file [slashdot.org] because some malware has operated by redirecting facebook.com to a phishing site. If you want to manage the hosts file yourself, exclude it from Windows Defender.
Perhaps I'm a little old-school on this topic ... but if malware has already been introduced into your system, to the point where it can execute code and overwrite system files, you're already compromised. You have no certainty about what else it has done or could do. You can never trust that system again until you format (better, securely wipe) and re-install from known-good media.
Thus, to me, this feature of Windows Defender seems useless and likely to interfere with legitimate configuration, as we're seeing now. Windows Defender and Windows systems in general seem to encourage the acceptance of system compromises that really should be a game-over scenario, I guess because it's more "convenient" that way.
I never doubted that a good hosts file is useful. I have used one myself since about nineteen or twenty years ago when I first discovered Linux. At that time, I was unaware of any good browser add-ons for blocking ads, though I did use the Junkbuster proxy (a local filtering HTTP proxy). I could be wrong but I believe this was before your program existed, or at least before you promoted it by spamming Slashdot.
The only real differences between your advice and mine: I only give mine when either directly asked, or when blocking advertisements is relevant to the discussion; and for me this is not a religious issue. I don't invest my concepts of self-worth or self-esteem into methods of blocking unwanted sites. I use multiple overlapping tools to get the combined benefits of each.
I find the performance of my system (including my browser) to be more than acceptable and I like the experience I have when using it. I also accept that someone else might have different goals and might be more satisfied with a different setup. I can accept that because it's supported by real-world observation and because again, this isn't a religious issue for me. I have no need to win converts and I don't care about treating others as heretics. It's called emotional security, and it's at least as important as host security. For me the important thing is that we all have the ability to customize things as we please.
I'm glad you are getting positive feedback about your hosts program. It sounds like those users are pleased with you, and to that degree you've done them a nice service. I just wish you'd grow up a little. That's all. If you need to hate me for saying that, I understand, but I hope you don't.
running an adblocker is almost like running an antivirus...
... something for Windows users?
Nah, I run one on multiple platforms!
at least one person thinks I'm not a bad person because I don't want to see flashing ads and videos while I am trying to read a story.
If the sociopaths who run most marketing corporations complain about what kind of person you are, you're probably doing something right.
I think APK might disagree with you, sir.
In my opinion, APK is a (sometimes amusing) pest and likely psychotic, routinely manifesting signs of potential obsessive compulsive behavior and a tremendous need to appear clever and "right" in the eyes of others, to the point of routinely patting himself on the back and celebrating "victories" regarding matters of preference and opinion.
One could speculate that his parents (or other caregivers) failed to give him the level of affection and validation he required when growing up and he is forever trying to fill this hole in his soul by spamming, acting obnoxious, seeking agreement, and making other pleas for attention. It would explain a lot. I assume he'll continue to follow my posts and respond to each one of them for a while (again), now that I've said this. He clearly has a lot of rage and has difficulty simply disagreeing with someone. Instead, he has to stalk them for days, long after a normal well-adjusted person would have let the matter go, because he really cannot stand it when someone makes a point he cannot easily rebut. Like I said, I believe he may have psychological problems and should seek the help of a qualified therapist.
Anyway, a more reasonable person uses hosts files when they are the correct tool for the job, frequently combining them with a good ad blocker in order to gain the multiple layers that good security demands. A more reasonable person does not treat this as a religious issue. A reasonable person plans for anticipated threat scenarios, decides what level of risk is acceptable, selects the right tools for the job, and uses them in combination to produce the desired result. No spamming or obsession is needed.
For the majority not reading the article, it is the article that mistakenly mentions atoms of graphite (instead of carbon), the summary is just quoting the mistake
Graphite is a form of carbon. Diamond is a form of carbon. Baryonic matter in general is made of atoms (okay, if you REALLY enjoy being anal [Freud would be pleased], the electrons are leptons). Since it didn't say "atoms of the element graphite", I don't see the problem here, other than your (and others') urge to be pedantic. Yes, they could have said "molecules of graphite", but still, there are much more egregious examples of shitty writing in the summary -- the kind a minimally-competent editor would have corrected -- if you enjoy pointing out that sort of thing.
Look at the times though....both of those phones were charged to ~50% in five minutes. That's some fast charging. (Why didn't they report the time to a total charge? I don't know).
It's standard marketing procedure to recognize a weak point and pretend like it doesn't exist, being careful never to voluntarily mention it. I don't know if that's what happened here, but Huawei is a corporation with a Marketing department, and this is such a widespread practice as to be my default assumption unless compelling independent evidence to the contrary is presented.
Well, it's certainly part of being an asshole to concentrate on something like 1/6th of what I wrote to, in a round about way, call me a douchebag.
Actually if I ever desire to resort to calling you names, I'll do it openly and unambiguously. You won't have to figure out any implications or read between any lines to invent it. That you insist on taking it this way and refuse to consider that you may have misunderstood me is beyond my control.
My point was that the practice you mentioned, while not inherently illegitimate, is so often mis-used by people (other than yourself) who act like douchebags that perhaps it wasn't the best example you could have chosen. It's the difference between a denotation and a connotation, and in this case the connotation has become negative, as though it's in the early stages of what happened to terms like "hacker".
It tells us that you are way too hung up on shit that doesn't concern you.
This is how we end up with things like the War on Drugs.
It's part of the reason that people say things like 'data is not the plural of anecdote'.
... so it's part of being a douchebag and regurgitating trite sayings in an effort to sound intelligent instead of actually contributing to the discussion by putting forth one's own well developed views?
Not that it isn't or couldn't be a worthy thing to remember, but that's not usually the way that one is used.
Most people just want to use their browser. Almost everyone I know uses Firefox mostly because IE sucked so much in the past. And they do not play around with themes. They might install icon sets, but only at home.
I know geeks like to configure everything and that is OK , but it is not what matters for the majority of users.
And no I do not want to use the Google sees it all tool for obvious reasons.
The great number of useful extensions is my own main reason for using Firefox. I also have Chromium and Konqueror installed but I hardly ever use them.
The Web is just too shitty of a general experience to use any browser without a good ad blocker. The many, many other available extensions is just icing on the cake.
You are wise in the way of the little old lady with her cup of change and vacant look in her eyes as she plies the glittering lights of Vegas. I've seen her, in the distance, but I dare not approach. I prefer table gaming, of course.
As long as you know when to double down, blackjack has the most favorable odds of anything you'll find in a casino.
I wonder if the FCC might have something to say about effectively jamming a communication signal, even if it is your own TV that you're jamming.
And if such a thing happens, I'll bet you that, somewhere in the 95 page EULA for your new TV is buried a clause that says, "You agree that you will not interfere with communications from this TV to the manufacturer".
Yet if it's an extremely short-range equivalent of a null route, precisely how would they detect that this is happening? Against what would they contrast their total lack of a connection of any sort? Just a hypothetical of course.
While the marketers have many flaws, unfortunately stupidity isn't one of them.
Disable your ad blocker and see how stupid marketers really are, repeatedly advertising something you searched for and bought a couple of weeks ago.
I admit, you got me there. It never once occurred to me to ever disable my ad blocker for any reason. I guess I'll extend some credibility and take your word for it. I am unwilling to actually put your proposal to the test. My ad blocker remains on. Yet you make an interesting claim.
Yes, though we used (and sheltered) many more Nazis than is generally known, even to those familiar with Project Paperclip.
Wait... Clippy is a Nazi spy?
Yes, apparently his Diabolical Evil Plan was to systematically destroy the reading comprehension of people like you. Or to cause you to make lame jokes.
... I was referring to Project Paperclip. You decide.
Or
Nah, it's all legit as long as you hire a hit-man from another country. At least that's what I was told.
As long as hiring any hit man is illegal where you perform this act, I really do doubt this would be a legitimate legal defense. But then, IANAL. But I really, seriously wouldn't try it.
Changing channels was also extremely slow: about 2 seconds between stations. TWO WHOLE SECONDS.
That's actually pretty normal for digital channels, because it takes time to decode enough of the stream to show a picture. But if it does that when switching analog channels, that's unacceptable.
Makes me wonder how much shorter the delay would be if the device didn't have to bother with useless HDCP, any other encryption, and copyright flags.