So the person who doesn't have obvious symptoms (AIDS) therefore must not be infected with HIV?
You still don't offer anything that really suggests you aren't infected. Until you actually RUN a scan (virus and spyware/adware/malware) and come up clean, there is nothing suggesting you are clean. Considering that 80-90% of all PCs are infected somehow and most people are totally unaware of the fact, the odds are against you.
I'm perfectly willing to accept the chance you MIGHT be clean, and should your scans prove it so I will commend your efforts. But until then, you simply sound like any number of other countless millions who are just in-denial. Closing one's eyes doesn't make the problem go away.
1) So what? Most people get infected by a very small subset of the huge number of known viruses antivirus software protects you against. It is an elite few who are so exposed that they are bound to get hit first by a new virus in the wild, so new the antivirus vendors haven't added a signature to their databases yet. Sure it happens once in a while, but SO WHAT? Meanwhile there are all these KNOWN ones out there EVERYWHERE that AV software CAN protect you against. It's like saying you won't take vaccines, since the flu vaccine won't protect you against HIV. Why not be protected against the flu anyway? Basically you're saying, "It only can help me 99% of the time, so since that's not 100% I don't even want that 99% of protection so I'll go without."
2) I don't care if they are only "partially-successful" in salvaging the infected file. Especially since most are irreversibly-damaging anyhow and so there's nothing TO salvage. To me, the REAL success is getting the virus off my computer. If I lose a document or other datafile in the process, it's not the end of the world. At least the virus has been DETECTED, and REMOVED, and is no longer infecting files on my machine and others. How on earth is that a good reason to not run it anyway? Once again, you're denying yourself all the benefits that AV software DOES have since it's not perfect 100% of the time.
3) First of all, virus != trojan. Secondly, most AV sofware DO detect the common trojans out there in the wild that you're likely to come across. And their on-demand scanning DOES catch those files in exactly the situation you describe. You're just plain wrong on this point. 0% technically accurate.
4) AV software is good for the same reason we use seatbelts, surge-suppressors, and bullet-proof vests. They add a level of protection that covers a significant scope of what one is bound to experience that it's worth it. A seatbelt won't save you if a semi crashed down on top of you, but usually people just get into rear-enders. A surge-suppressor won't protect you if lightning hits the line 10' from your computer, but usually that's not the case and what you experience are normal surges well within its range of protection. A bullet-proof vest won't protect you against a RPG shot at your head, but they have saved many people from gunshots aimed at the torso which is the majority of what cops come up against, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue with a cop that he shouldn't bother wearing his/hers.
Since you don't run a virus scanner, and most viruses are designed to remain hidden and unknown to the user... how can you legitimately say you "haven't had any issues"?
Sure, you qualify that with "hardware related", but that immediately nullifies your whole argument, since last I knew the virus problem was software-related, and not hardware.
Years ago maybe. I don't know about Linux, but on FreeBSD the sound driver is a kernel loadable module, loadable with kldload and not only does not require a kernel rebuild, but does not even require a reboot.
Truly brilliant. Since it's become an industry standard to never release software that actually works and refuse to want to support it, just always call it "beta". People will still snatch it up in droves but you can always deflect any responsibility for problems since it is "beta" after all.
Hell, some places CHARGE for "beta" software. Go figure.
You can still get killed by a shot to the head if you're wearing a bullet-proof vest, however that hasn't stopped them from being used.
Why? Because they're proven as having a huge effect at reducing casualties of gunshots since most target the torso... the biggest target.
Likewise, replacing IE with a different browser such as Firefox has also been proven to have a HUGE effect at reducing Windows infections, because IE is the biggest target (and an easy one, not just because of its prevalence). Does it stop all? No. There are LOTS of vectors of infection. But that doesn't change the fact that many (if not most) can be blocked by simply not using IE.
You can't blame the user all the time. Your mom goes to some benign news site (not porn, not MP3s), with rotating ad banners. One of the members of the ad network used in one of the banners has decided to partner with a company who to uses adware/spyware as part of the deal. Their adware slips into her computer once the banner is loaded by exploiting a bug in IE and installing without any user notification whatsoever. So mom visits a tame site, gets infected, and has no idea anything has happened. How is that her fault?
The process where the USPTO first rejects an application, then eventually accepts it if you spend the money and persist is one way for the system to select valuable patents: applicants will only spend time and money on multiple resubmissions in proportion to the value they place on the patent.
Ah, of course that'd work. A lot like our legal system: by making sure only those with lots of money can sue or defend themselves, we save the court the burden of dealing with the unvaluable petty issues that would otherwise waste their valuable $sys$golfing time.
When Galeon or Epiphany get extensions I depend on like AdBlock, then I might consider them, as they are indeed fast and slick. However, I cannot browse the web without Adblock, and I use quite a few other extensions regularly too.
"I hearby inform you under powers entrusted to me under section 47, paragraph 7 of council order numbr 438476, that Mister Buttle, Archibald residing at 412 North Tower Shangri-La Towers has been invited to assist the Ministry of Information with certain inquiries, and that he is liable to certain financial obligations as specified in council order RV/CZ/907/X. Sign here, please. Thank you. That is your receipt for your husband, and here is my receipt for your receipt."
I seem never to be able to upgrade gaim, at least not easily. I always have to do an rpm upgrade with the Force option because of "conflicts" with other gaim packages. And the last couple of new releases of gaim won't even install with "Force".
Not a Gaim problem. It's got to be a problem with your distro/packages. Echoing a lot of the replies you've already gotten, I've never had a problem upgrading Gaim. Granted I use FreeBSD, but still... it demonstrates the fault does not lie with Gaim.
I've converted lots of people on Windows to Gaim too. For the most part, they love it. The biggest issues they have are with lack of webcam support, and file transfers.
Did you not read my full post? I specifically referred to that in my last few sentences. I am not being a hypocrite.
The point I was making was NOT that there should be no advertising, that it is bad, and that no one should ever see it. The question posed was why YOU (I) block advertisements and why. I outlined my specific reasons. My reasons why aren't necessarily those of any significant number of consumers out there. However, they are mine and so that was my answer to the question.
Again, to reiterate: not only is advertising necessary for businesses, but there is a broad realm of passive CONSUMERS who are DEPENDENT on advertising and for whom it is effective and even desired. Do I advertise? Sure. Am I careful to be subtle about it and not do anything annoying/obnoxious like many sites? Extremely. Does advertising work on ME? No in the least. Does it work on others? Absolutely.
The point is that sites are free to advertise as long as they don't get all whiney that a certain group of consumer like myself blocks all ads. They wouldn't have worked on me anyway and would actually work AGAINST you. Produce a quality product and I WILL come across it when I'm good and ready to shop, as others will be raving about it. Until then, keep your ads out of my face.
I am in a minority group, however. If you are in the same group as me, you are free to block my ads and I don't care. I take no steps to avoid it.
Because I'm not that sort of consumer
on
Why Do You Block Ads?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I block ads because advertising doesn't fit the sort of consumer I am. While I understand the desire for companies to advertise (and the desire for sites to provide free content in return for advertising), that only works for consumers who are sensitive to advertising. I am not like that, however. I am a different sort of consumer. I am the knowledge-empowered, researching sort of consumer. Not only will advertising not get you any points with me, but will probably work against you.
When I'm online reading stuff on a web page, I'm not in a frame of mind to be advertised to. I'm working on something else, thank you very much. Interrupt me and it's not much different than a salesman calling me while I'm trying to eat dinner or enjoy a good book. If I'm ready to purchase something, I will then do research and find reviews sites, discussion forums, and other such stuff. I could care less what the manufacturer says about its own products. Half of it tends to be lies anyway. So advertising gets a company absolutely nowhere with me. If you have a product worth buying, it's going to have to stand on its own due to its merits, and not because you spent $X million advertising it. Some of my best products I've ever purchased are well-known only to enthusiasts in the field, and usually never advertise. Because they don't need to.
Not every consumer is like me. So granted there is a market for advertising. I am not that market, however. So why should I waste my screen real-estate and bandwidth for material which will never obtain its desired purpose with me?
I use AdBlock with Firefox and block EVERYTHING with a ruthless passion.
However I don't deny the success of advertising and I do use it a tiny bit myself. Other consumers are passive and depend on advertising to proactively notify them about products, vs themselves doing the work.
Our local theme park had a small IMAX years back. It was cool... no cost either, it was included in admission.
In the ever-increasing effort to screw the customer for more money, it was taken out and replaced by an arcade, which of course was NOT included in the price... you'd pay $30 admission for the privilege of pumping quarters into a crappy arcade.
So what about all those people running Gnome 2.12 on FreeBSD already?
The fact that it's not going to be in the ports tree until 6.0 comes out is more of a logistical thing... it's certainly ready to use and it only take a minor step to merge Marcus' "stable" ports into your own local ports tree:
You can't get complex lifeforms in just one or two dimensions because there's not enough "room" - e.g. a complete intestine would make a 2-d animal fall apart.
Actually, I remember reading a book on the 4th dimension by Rudy Rucker where they outlined a solution for this, which involved winding the intenstine in such a way that one side had "nodes" that were then "interlocked" with the other side, so that it was held together and could not separate.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if people would start making themes for mozilla again. The default and the ones I have found are butt ugly.
z illa
There are a bunch here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/themes/?application=mo
So the person who doesn't have obvious symptoms (AIDS) therefore must not be infected with HIV?
You still don't offer anything that really suggests you aren't infected. Until you actually RUN a scan (virus and spyware/adware/malware) and come up clean, there is nothing suggesting you are clean. Considering that 80-90% of all PCs are infected somehow and most people are totally unaware of the fact, the odds are against you.
I'm perfectly willing to accept the chance you MIGHT be clean, and should your scans prove it so I will commend your efforts. But until then, you simply sound like any number of other countless millions who are just in-denial. Closing one's eyes doesn't make the problem go away.
1) So what? Most people get infected by a very small subset of the huge number of known viruses antivirus software protects you against. It is an elite few who are so exposed that they are bound to get hit first by a new virus in the wild, so new the antivirus vendors haven't added a signature to their databases yet. Sure it happens once in a while, but SO WHAT? Meanwhile there are all these KNOWN ones out there EVERYWHERE that AV software CAN protect you against. It's like saying you won't take vaccines, since the flu vaccine won't protect you against HIV. Why not be protected against the flu anyway? Basically you're saying, "It only can help me 99% of the time, so since that's not 100% I don't even want that 99% of protection so I'll go without."
2) I don't care if they are only "partially-successful" in salvaging the infected file. Especially since most are irreversibly-damaging anyhow and so there's nothing TO salvage. To me, the REAL success is getting the virus off my computer. If I lose a document or other datafile in the process, it's not the end of the world. At least the virus has been DETECTED, and REMOVED, and is no longer infecting files on my machine and others. How on earth is that a good reason to not run it anyway? Once again, you're denying yourself all the benefits that AV software DOES have since it's not perfect 100% of the time.
3) First of all, virus != trojan. Secondly, most AV sofware DO detect the common trojans out there in the wild that you're likely to come across. And their on-demand scanning DOES catch those files in exactly the situation you describe. You're just plain wrong on this point. 0% technically accurate.
4) AV software is good for the same reason we use seatbelts, surge-suppressors, and bullet-proof vests. They add a level of protection that covers a significant scope of what one is bound to experience that it's worth it. A seatbelt won't save you if a semi crashed down on top of you, but usually people just get into rear-enders. A surge-suppressor won't protect you if lightning hits the line 10' from your computer, but usually that's not the case and what you experience are normal surges well within its range of protection. A bullet-proof vest won't protect you against a RPG shot at your head, but they have saved many people from gunshots aimed at the torso which is the majority of what cops come up against, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue with a cop that he shouldn't bother wearing his/hers.
And finally... "virii" is not a word, and horribly incorrect under all rules of Latin as a plural of "virus".
Since you don't run a virus scanner, and most viruses are designed to remain hidden and unknown to the user... how can you legitimately say you "haven't had any issues"?
Sure, you qualify that with "hardware related", but that immediately nullifies your whole argument, since last I knew the virus problem was software-related, and not hardware.
Bravo! I have been using the term "read-bump" now for a while to describe this.
Please tell me your misuse of every single apostraphe (and lack of one when it was needed) was intentional irony to make a point.
Oh and by the way, in non-"gangsta" parts of the world, "grammar" has two Rs.
Years ago maybe. I don't know about Linux, but on FreeBSD the sound driver is a kernel loadable module, loadable with kldload and not only does not require a kernel rebuild, but does not even require a reboot.
And "beta" is about as far as it'll get.
Truly brilliant. Since it's become an industry standard to never release software that actually works and refuse to want to support it, just always call it "beta". People will still snatch it up in droves but you can always deflect any responsibility for problems since it is "beta" after all.
Hell, some places CHARGE for "beta" software. Go figure.
You and I are agreeing with each other. You need to read my post in the context of the one I was replying to. The parent said you couldn't blame IE.
You can still get killed by a shot to the head if you're wearing a bullet-proof vest, however that hasn't stopped them from being used.
Why? Because they're proven as having a huge effect at reducing casualties of gunshots since most target the torso... the biggest target.
Likewise, replacing IE with a different browser such as Firefox has also been proven to have a HUGE effect at reducing Windows infections, because IE is the biggest target (and an easy one, not just because of its prevalence). Does it stop all? No. There are LOTS of vectors of infection. But that doesn't change the fact that many (if not most) can be blocked by simply not using IE.
You can't blame the user all the time. Your mom goes to some benign news site (not porn, not MP3s), with rotating ad banners. One of the members of the ad network used in one of the banners has decided to partner with a company who to uses adware/spyware as part of the deal. Their adware slips into her computer once the banner is loaded by exploiting a bug in IE and installing without any user notification whatsoever. So mom visits a tame site, gets infected, and has no idea anything has happened. How is that her fault?
"I don't feel like going to a lyric site right now and festooning my display with twelve pop-ups."
Ummm....what's a pop-up?
The process where the USPTO first rejects an application, then eventually accepts it if you spend the money and persist is one way for the system to select valuable patents: applicants will only spend time and money on multiple resubmissions in proportion to the value they place on the patent.
Ah, of course that'd work. A lot like our legal system: by making sure only those with lots of money can sue or defend themselves, we save the court the burden of dealing with the unvaluable petty issues that would otherwise waste their valuable $sys$golfing time.
When Galeon or Epiphany get extensions I depend on like AdBlock, then I might consider them, as they are indeed fast and slick. However, I cannot browse the web without Adblock, and I use quite a few other extensions regularly too.
"I hearby inform you under powers entrusted to me under section 47, paragraph 7 of council order numbr 438476, that Mister Buttle, Archibald residing at 412 North Tower Shangri-La Towers has been invited to assist the Ministry of Information with certain inquiries, and that he is liable to certain financial obligations as specified in council order RV/CZ/907/X. Sign here, please. Thank you. That is your receipt for your husband, and here is my receipt for your receipt."
Maybe it's only if you're big enough, but we can still order Dells with Windows 2000.
I play Ogg files on my Palm T3 with a 1GB SD card just fine. :)
It's just the beginning of a new product line from Sony
Not a Gaim problem. It's got to be a problem with your distro/packages. Echoing a lot of the replies you've already gotten, I've never had a problem upgrading Gaim. Granted I use FreeBSD, but still... it demonstrates the fault does not lie with Gaim.
I've converted lots of people on Windows to Gaim too. For the most part, they love it. The biggest issues they have are with lack of webcam support, and file transfers.
Did you not read my full post? I specifically referred to that in my last few sentences. I am not being a hypocrite.
The point I was making was NOT that there should be no advertising, that it is bad, and that no one should ever see it. The question posed was why YOU (I) block advertisements and why. I outlined my specific reasons. My reasons why aren't necessarily those of any significant number of consumers out there. However, they are mine and so that was my answer to the question.
Again, to reiterate: not only is advertising necessary for businesses, but there is a broad realm of passive CONSUMERS who are DEPENDENT on advertising and for whom it is effective and even desired. Do I advertise? Sure. Am I careful to be subtle about it and not do anything annoying/obnoxious like many sites? Extremely. Does advertising work on ME? No in the least. Does it work on others? Absolutely.
The point is that sites are free to advertise as long as they don't get all whiney that a certain group of consumer like myself blocks all ads. They wouldn't have worked on me anyway and would actually work AGAINST you. Produce a quality product and I WILL come across it when I'm good and ready to shop, as others will be raving about it. Until then, keep your ads out of my face.
I am in a minority group, however. If you are in the same group as me, you are free to block my ads and I don't care. I take no steps to avoid it.
I block ads because advertising doesn't fit the sort of consumer I am. While I understand the desire for companies to advertise (and the desire for sites to provide free content in return for advertising), that only works for consumers who are sensitive to advertising. I am not like that, however. I am a different sort of consumer. I am the knowledge-empowered, researching sort of consumer. Not only will advertising not get you any points with me, but will probably work against you.
When I'm online reading stuff on a web page, I'm not in a frame of mind to be advertised to. I'm working on something else, thank you very much. Interrupt me and it's not much different than a salesman calling me while I'm trying to eat dinner or enjoy a good book. If I'm ready to purchase something, I will then do research and find reviews sites, discussion forums, and other such stuff. I could care less what the manufacturer says about its own products. Half of it tends to be lies anyway. So advertising gets a company absolutely nowhere with me. If you have a product worth buying, it's going to have to stand on its own due to its merits, and not because you spent $X million advertising it. Some of my best products I've ever purchased are well-known only to enthusiasts in the field, and usually never advertise. Because they don't need to.
Not every consumer is like me. So granted there is a market for advertising. I am not that market, however. So why should I waste my screen real-estate and bandwidth for material which will never obtain its desired purpose with me?
I use AdBlock with Firefox and block EVERYTHING with a ruthless passion.
However I don't deny the success of advertising and I do use it a tiny bit myself. Other consumers are passive and depend on advertising to proactively notify them about products, vs themselves doing the work.
Our local theme park had a small IMAX years back. It was cool... no cost either, it was included in admission.
In the ever-increasing effort to screw the customer for more money, it was taken out and replaced by an arcade, which of course was NOT included in the price... you'd pay $30 admission for the privilege of pumping quarters into a crappy arcade.
So what about all those people running Gnome 2.12 on FreeBSD already?
The fact that it's not going to be in the ports tree until 6.0 comes out is more of a logistical thing... it's certainly ready to use and it only take a minor step to merge Marcus' "stable" ports into your own local ports tree:
http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/docs/develfaq.html
It amounts to all of one additional line in your ports-updating script, which I comment/uncomment as needed. From there on, everything is the same.
So you're switching the OS on multiple desktops for the sake of avoiding a single one-line command (marcusmerge)? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Actually, that (basic) functionality was removed in the previous release.
The lack of any decent menu editor has been a hot topic for quite some time...
You can't get complex lifeforms in just one or two dimensions because there's not enough "room" - e.g. a complete intestine would make a 2-d animal fall apart.
Actually, I remember reading a book on the 4th dimension by Rudy Rucker where they outlined a solution for this, which involved winding the intenstine in such a way that one side had "nodes" that were then "interlocked" with the other side, so that it was held together and could not separate.
Damn... tapping into the farmer's electricity wasn't enough. Now those smart bastards want high-speed internet access.