Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Does Scientific Literacy Make People More Ethical?

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the engaged-with-reality dept.

Science 315

New submitter alysion writes "Per research published in the online journal PLOS One, psychologists Christine Ma-Kellams of Harvard University and Jim Blascovich of the University of California, Santa Barbara report, 'Thinking about science leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms.' In one of the four supporting experiments, undergraduates considered an account of a date rape and were asked to judge behavior on a scale of 1 to 100. Science types, perhaps not surprisingly, proved to have a better grasp of reality, including the moral kind."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

no (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319983)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.


apk on 4chan []




That was amazing. - []


My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - []


Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - []


put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - []


Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - []


[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - []


this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - []


this is hilarious. - []


I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - []


Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - []


a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - []


a very clever parody of APK - []


Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - []


Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - []


Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - []


I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - []


KUDOS valiant AC. - []


Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - []


You made my day, thanks! - []


Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - []


truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - []


It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - []


Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - []


APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - []


Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - []


Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - []


That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - []


that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - []


What? - []


It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - []


[to apk] er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - []


it's apk, theres no reason to care. - []


Seems more like an apk parody. - []


That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - []


Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - []


I can has summary? - []


Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - []


We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - []


Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - []


Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - []


In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [] . Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - []


You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - []


"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - [] []


I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - []


Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - []


Best. Troll. Ever. - []


I like monkeys. - []


This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - []


I admire this guy's persistence. - []


It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - []


APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. - []


Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - []


I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - []


^ Champion Mod parent up. - []


I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - []


The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - []


AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - []


If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - []


">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - [] []


No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto] 's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - []


Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - []


Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - []




I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - []


Can I be in your quote list? - []


Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - []


+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - []


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - []


APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - []


I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - []


oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - []


"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - [] []


"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - [] []


"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - []
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - []


Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - []


you have a point - []


I do admire that level of dedication. - []


[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - []


I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - []


I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - []


Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - []


Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - []


I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - []


extremely bright - []


You provide many references, which is good. - []


Obviously very passionate - []


Thanks ... You should probably stay - []


Art? -- []


PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - []


I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - []


I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - []


Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - []


Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - []


You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - []


Most insightful post on the Internet - []


I read the whole thing *again* just to see if my comment was in there - []


[to apk] So, did your mom do a lot of drugs when she was pregnant? - []


people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - []


Slashdot devs seem in no hurry to fix this problem and it's been driving me nuts. So for anybody who values viewing at -1 and uses greasemonkey here's a Script [] . There's a chance of false positives and it's not the most optimized. But I value not having to scroll through > 10 paragraphs of APK, custom hosts files, or 'acceptable ads' spam. - []
--> slashdot devs are too busy installing itunes for their hipster nerd buddys to sort this problem out. - []


I can't get enough of all of this good stuff! Thanks for the informative links! - []


When threatened, APK typically produces a post with links showing he's essentially posted this hundreds of times to slashdot stories... - []


[to apk] Your post got downmodded because you're a nutjob gone off his meds. - []


[to apk] The reason people impersonate you is because everyone thinks you're a moron. The hosts file is not intended to be used as you suggest. - []
-->What? You don't have a 14MB hosts file with ~1million entries in it? Next you'll probably tell me that your computer doesn't start thrashing and take 5 minutes for a DNS lookup! - []


[about apk] - this fwit is as thick as a post. worse, this shithead has mod points. and using them. - []


In before the fight between those two guys and their walls of text... - []




KPA ...thgim dik a ekil .s.b laivirt hcus no emit hcum taht etsaw t'ndluow I sa ,ti gniod em TON si ti - syug ON - []


[to apk] You seriously need to go see a shrink. You are a fucking fruitcake! - []


[to apk] Did you ever consider that it's not just one corrupt moderator, it's a bunch of regular slashdot users who infrequently get mod points who think you are totally full of shit? Stop posting annoying off topic irrelevant bullshit, and people won't mod you down. I'm seriously sick of reading your posts about someone impersonating you. - []


[to apk] you should be forced to use a cholla cactus as a butt-plug - []


[to apk] No one is on your side, that is why you're here. posting. still. No one cares. - []


Who's the more moronic? The original moron, or the one who replies to him knowing full well his comment will certainly be ignored, if not entirely unread, thus bringing the insane troll post to the attention of those who would otherwise not have seen it at all (seeing as it started at 0 and would have rapidly been modded down to -1) and whose post (and, somewhat ironically I grant you, this one as well) now requires 3 more mod points to be spent to hide it? - []


[to apk] I miss trollaxor. His gay porn world of slashdot executives and open-source luminaries was infinitely more entertaining than this drivel. - []


PLEASE stop modding biters up. Anyone who responds to an abvious troll, especually one of these APK trolls, should autometically get the same -1 troll as the damned troll. Any response to a troll only makes the troll do more trolling. Come on, guys, use your brains -- it isn't that hard. Stop feeding the damned trolls! - (missing link)


[to apk] Lick the inside of goatse's anus, it's delicious! - []


Excellent post A++++++++++++ would scroll past again!!!! - []


[to apk] You are the one who is pitiful. If you didn't spam /. with your bullshit you wouldn't have spammer 'impostors' doing the same. Just fuck off and die already, ok? Please, really. Step in front of a bus. Drink some bleach. Whatever it takes, just FUCK OFF and DIE. - []


[to apk] From one AC to another please for the love of god, PRINT YOUR HOST FILE OUT AND CRAM IT DOWN YOUR JAPS EYE!!! For fucks sake we don't care we see this and it takes the piss, short of a full frontal lobotomy what will it take to stop you posting this you moronic fuckwit? - []


[to apk] And someone forgot to take his meds today...Are you really that dense that you cant tell that the only reason the "impostor" exists because you have a hard time realizing that you are wrong and/or wont let it go. It would take a complete moron to not realize that the whole reason he continues to do it is because he knows he can get you to respond by simply posting. This isnt rocket science, this is internet 101... Let me offer you some advice on how to get rid of this "impostor"...shutup - []


[to apk] If you had a 'luser' account it wouldn't be a problem. But you don't want one of those, because your long rambling and bizarrely formatted posts mean your karma gets nuked in next to no time. So I guess you just have to work out which is 'worth it'. Posting AC because I don't want to become your latest fixation. - []


I wouldn't be surprised if that is APK trying to draw attention to himself, since he thinks such endless tirades are examples of him winning and make him look good. When people stop paying attention to him, or post actual counterpoints he can't come up with a response to, he'll post strawman troll postings to shoot down, sometimes just copy pasted from previous stories. - []


[to apk] No one wants to read your copy pasted crap. Maybe someone is mocking you because you make it so easy to? So drop it, and participate like an adult please. - []


Seriously.... What. The. Fuck. Can you two homos just go make out on brokeback mountain already, and stop talking about how one of you misspelled "penetration", and how the other cockblocks with their hosts files while grabing the other's goat? Goodness, it sure feels like being in a mountain range, trying to peer around those fucking orbital tether lengthed posts of pure premium bullsit the two of you somehoq manage to keep pushing out on demand. Shit stinks! At this point, i'd be willing to risk the fucking extinction of all life on earth by redirecting siding spring C/2013 1A to miss Mars and land on both of your fucking heads instead. The deaths of billions would be a small price to pay to shut you two cackling lovebirds up! - []


[to apk] Listen up jackass, why the hell would somebody want to impersonate you? You're a certified internet kook. Nobody gives a hot about your 3 gig hosts file. And nobody is impersonating you. You're already a fucking parody. - []


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. Despite this advice you are convinced that your comments are valuable contributions, ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary (namely the -1 scores your posts earn on a regular basis). - []


[about apk] Can this be killed off? I don't mean this account, I mean the actual meatbag behind it. - []




Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.


* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [] I practice.


Disproof of all apk's statements:


RECENT POST LINKS: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
REPORT MISSING LINKS FOR REWARD (check pastebin archive first)


TIP JAR: 1EtLgU5L3jhmVkDmqrWT9VhoZ1F2jSimHS []
RECEIVED: 0.0195 BTC - thx! ;-)

I did not post this, it is fake... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320053)

A corrupt slashdot luser has infiltrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 180++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:


A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 180 or so times I noted above) -> []


B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here


(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).


P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March now, & 180++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:


21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option [] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> [] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions ( via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were: [] []

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> []

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> [] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth: []

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:



And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:



As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It: []


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing: []


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy [] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> [] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: [] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads: []


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services: []


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again): []


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody: []


Google sponsored links caught punting malware: []


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads: []


Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users: []


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer: []


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware: []


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge: []


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware: []


Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC: []


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills: []


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web: []


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware: []












London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware: []


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads: []


As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills: []


AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant): []


It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> []

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:



An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM []

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."


"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!


19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):



"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like (which protects the Firefox browser)...


20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( [] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( [] ), &/or NoScript ( [] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( [] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains: []


BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here: []



(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)


DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that): []

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)


Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)


DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit: []


DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak: []


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9: []


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against: []


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards: []


Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!) []




TimeWarner DNS Hijacking: []


DNS Re-Binding Attacks: []


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture: []


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability: []


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning: []


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs: []


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion: []


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued: []


Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked: []


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks: []


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse: []


HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> []
  ScrubIT DNS -> []
  OpenDNS -> []

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> [] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...




"Ever since I've installed a host file ( to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: [] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. [] and [] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)


Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:


Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):


"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!


"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 [] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> [] !


"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> [] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> [] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] IN HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> [] in HOSTS:2009 -> []
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> [] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> []


Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0


You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using, next slowest using, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger or line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( &/or, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...


2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> [] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.


Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:


1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...


First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in: []

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths


The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this: []

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> [] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem ( offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcache (like ANY fil

It's Jeremiah Cornelius, NOT I, folks... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320273)

THIS is why he's doing it & proof of it, here -> [] when others pointed out Jeremiah Cornelius forgot to submit one of the "first post spams" masquerading as myself as AC, & mistakenly submitted one of the impersonations of myself as his registered 'luser' name here on /. forums.

Pretty pitiful actually, but like every up to no good idiot does? He screwed up & submitted it under his registered 'luser' name here.

* Jeremiah Cornelius: DO YOURSELF, and the rest of us, A GIANT FAVOR MAN: Seek professional psychiatric help!

(Since Jeremiah Cornelius obviously can't get over the fact he made a spelling error on what it is HE ALLEGEDLY DID FOR A LIVING? That's not MY fault... it's HIS!)


P.S.=> I seriously must have dusted JC (in his mind @ least) for his BAD spelling error & it "got his goat"...

I.E.-> Catching what he claimed to do as a job, for YEARS he left "PENETRATION" (correct) spelled as "PENTRATION" (incorrect) on his resume on LinkedIn & I pointed it out as he & his friends trolled me as usual (webmistressrachel, gmhowell, & crew (probably ALL JC no doubt using alterate emails or TOR to do it as a possible - I've caught "them & theirs" doing it before, ala Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person))).

So THAT is what has gotten his goat in a technical debate & his "geek angst" could only come up with *trying* to "impersonate me" in every news thread on /. for the month of March 2013 so far!

(Just to attempt to 'discredit me' as a spammer here obviously)

Doing so, by posting that "$10,000 challenge" &/or reposts of my old posts on hosts file value to end users into EVERY SINGLE NEWS ARTICLE POSTED on /. ...

It's all I can think of that *might* cause such a mentally troubled 'reaction' like the Jeremiah Cornelius is doing & there's NO QUESTION he's the one doing this spamming of nearly every posted article masquerading as myself...!

... apk

Well, in my line of work (0)

Adult film producer (866485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319987)

there are very few scientists or even college graduates. And I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck magnets work!

Re:Well, in my line of work (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320035)

And I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck magnets work!

Where did you get your fuck magnets from? I had no idea it was so high-tech!

Re:Well, in my line of work (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320267)

My guess is from Amazon, like any other Juggalo.

Re:Well, in my line of work (2, Insightful)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320351)

>> And I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck magnets work!
> Where did you get your fuck magnets from? I had no idea it was so high-tech!

It is a sort of babe magnet, dont you see?

On a more serious note... Ethics and science have little to do with one and other.
Einstein left was a terrible husband, left his first child (who some claim was mentally ill) and her mother to themselves. In his consecutive marriages he cheated as if the nuclear holocaust was due next day.
Plenty of physicians conducted horrendous medical experiments on inmates in the name of science during the WW2 both on Japanese as on German side. Some of these experiments were controversial or unscientific at that moment, but the WERE university educated physicians nevertheless.
The Tuskegee syphilis experiment and Syphilis experiments in Guatemala were also conducted by doctors.
In Sweden (until the 70's) there was a government program to exterminate the 'socially weak' by rendering the women infertile without consent or even informing them.
Most corrupt politicians went, just like non-corrupt politicians, to university (Angela Merkel is a quantum physicist if I remember correctly, go to Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal or Cyprus to ask what people think of her moral codes).

In short, scientific literacy doesn't necessarily mean one will become more ethical inclined.

Troll's: Don't even think of starting a chemtrail/illuminati/cold fusion/other pseudo-science thread. We are talking real ethics here...

Re:Well, in my line of work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320507)

Steven Jay Gould.

Re:Well, in my line of work (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320531)

And yet this science article says that it does. So are you saying that're not real scientists, or not talking about real ethics, or what? When the hypothesis is "being A is highly correlated with being B", simply stating "Ah, but here's an A that's not B, therefore WRONG" is not a valid argument. The entirety of your post is basically one large logical fallacy wrapped up in horrific acts to distract from the lack of substance, with a little bit of ad hominem on Angela Merkel to add topicality. What people think of her "moral codes" is completely irrelevant to both the issue at hand, and her actual ethical behavior. The fact that it's +4 Insightful is completely baffling.

Re:Well, in my line of work (0)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320559)

mod parent up.. please?

Re:Well, in my line of work (3, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320359)

And I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck magnets work!

Where did you get your fuck magnets from? I had no idea it was so high-tech!

Wrong question. "Where can I get fuck magnets???" is the correct one. I'm assuming you wanna get laid like the rest of us?

Re:Well, in my line of work (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320451)

Wrong question. "Where can I get fuck magnets???" is the correct one. I'm assuming you wanna get laid like the rest of us?

Not if I'm a long-standing fuck magnet connoisseur striking up conversation with another. I'm more than happy with my Penetron 3000, but I know those in the industry prefer the Klunge-O-Matic.

Re:Well, in my line of work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320185)

Interesting. Magnets. Can you please recommend one of your films with magnets ?
CAPTCHA "repress"

Re:Well, in my line of work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320557)

You need to have a current or a moving charge to create a magnetic field.

Rape (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319989)

Was the PyCon case where a poor woman was raped when two guys made a dirt joke near her?

Of course (0)

Stumbles (602007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319991)

it doesn't make people more ethical. If anything less so as they think they have a more sound sense of why they should kill you.

Re:Of course (2)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320007)

Right. Depends on whose "ethics."

Not to go Godwin, but Germany, for the time, was pretty advanced educationally. Soviets didn't do too bad for themselves. I'm sure the Gulag Archipelago testifies otherwise.

Re:Of course (0)

Stumbles (602007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320041)

Well I didn't want to bring that into it but yeah. Ya gotta like the idea of wrapping evolution into a political/governmental idea; makes it easy to justify wiping out $A_Race_You_Dont_Like. If any thing I'd say "scientific literacy" makes one more dimwitted as in the proverbial frog in a pot of water much like the intelligentsia of Nazi Germany were blind to the real intend by Hitler.

Re:Of course (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320097)

As opposed to the uneducated people who were clearly up in arms over the whole thing...

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320115)

To Godwin or not to Godwin?

It would be nice to have slashdot automatically mark all these intellectually lazy Godwin comments -1.

Re:Of course (3, Insightful)

only_human (761334) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320593)

To Godwin or not to Godwin?

It would be nice to have slashdot automatically mark all these intellectually lazy Godwin comments -1.

All of these comments are relevant and none of them fall under Godwin's Law:'s_law []

The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, [...]

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320199)

Germany was scientifically advanced, but the Nazis weren't. The Nazis believed in pseudoscience. The same is true of the Soviets (look at their agricultural theories [] for one example).

Bad Design (0, Flamebait)

Etherwalk (681268) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320235)

Science types in a poll conducted at a university are going to have harsher views on date rape because they have partied less.

Re:Of course (4, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320405)

The meaning of their tests is simpler than that, actually. They used no controls. It would be just as valid to say "science makes people think in more absolute terms," which surprises no one, and fits the data perfectly well. Too bad that isn't headline-grabbing, or they might have conducted a responsible study. Whoever reviewed this thing should slap themselves; it's complete garbage.

Should be more careful with the wording (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320013)

The article's title raises the issue of ethics, but the summary talks about moral norms, these are not the same thing. Ethics and morals, while somewhat related, deal with different view points as they relate to behaviour. If we're going to be scientific about judging someone's actions we first have to make sure everyone agrees on the definitions of ethical and moral, something society in general has trouble doing.

Re:Should be more careful with the wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320329)

This here. Not to be underestimated. Definition is the backbone of every theory, practical tests and measurements!

Captcha: pedant

Re:Should be more careful with the wording (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320331)

...something society in general has trouble doing.

Really? Well I don't believe so, it just seems that a lot of people have found that it's easier to toss morals and ethics out the window when it suits their agenda. It's easy to go from "well I shouldn't, because it's wrong" to "I'm going to because I know I'm right away..." We see it with academics all the time, we see it in politics, and we see it in society in general. And people do it because it's, expedient, low risk, and no one is really going to call them out on it.

Re:Should be more careful with the wording (1)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320415)

You get morals by discussing ethics.

Ethics is the building blocks of morals.

Our space program was built by Nazis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320033)

Which should prove to you that scientists are basically amoral. They care only about the gathering of knowledge. Sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the few, or the many.

Re:Our space program was built by Nazis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320145)

And the nuclear weapon comes to mind.

scientific literacy along with general education (1, Interesting)

etash (1907284) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320063)

(such as history, sociology etc.) gives the potential to people to truly CHOOSE to be moral* or not. You can't be called a moral guy just because you obey 3 thousand year old myths because you are afraid of the bearded man in the sky. People who "are" good because of their religion are in fact immoral people who just pretend to be good under fear.

* whatever moral means for anyone, since morality/ethics are purely subjective.

Re:scientific literacy along with general educatio (5, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320173)

A refutation of your post seems unnecessary since you appear to be hard at work refuting yourself. On one hand you sweepingly dismissed as not truly moral those who do what is right out of fear of the sorts of spiritual repercussions that you don't believe in. And then on the other hand you said that there isn't any objective standard for morality or ethics, implying that your first point is wrong, since their idea of morality is just as good as yours. Lol!

Re:scientific literacy along with general educatio (2)

Twinbee (767046) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320189)

I'm pretty sure we can say that morals aren't purely subjective. For example, practically everyone would agree that extreme torture to another human for 'just a laff' would be at least morally dubious.

Re:scientific literacy along with general educatio (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320275)

practically everyone

That is not, by any means, a measure of objective truth.

What makes those who would disagree about torture for fun objectively wrong?

Re:scientific literacy along with general educatio (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320371)

Not objectively, but subjectively, if someone else could be put under torture, so could you.
Spiritually, if you torture someone, in a later life, you will have to pay back that "lesson" in order to integrate wisdom. It's not really "pay back", as many are fond of thinking karma as a deposit box (see these can be raided in spirit too!), it's more like what's really required and wanted in order to make progress.

Of course, little of this can be linearly proven in the physical, but the resonance can be felt, understood, even grok'ed. Especially with experience and wisdom.

Re:scientific literacy along with general educatio (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320445)

And there we go into the realm of qualia [] , and possibly the supernatural. I can't prove it, and I hate to use the word "faith" (I'm not religious), but if there was ever use for such a word, that would fit the bill very well.

Re:scientific literacy along with general educatio (3, Insightful)

a whoabot (706122) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320469)

Kant showed why such things are objectively wrong almost 200 years ago. It's just that very few people have the patience to read the first and second critiques, the Groundwork and the Metaphysics of Morals, so most people are ignorant of this advancement in ethics.

In particular look at the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative in the Groundwork. A morally-correct maxim necessarily assumes a respect for other people's autonomy. Torturing someone for fun completely undermines any such respect.

Re:scientific literacy along with general educatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320325)

And what if this other 'human' were taken from a race your morals consider less than animals. To some, torturing these will be even justified.

Re:scientific literacy along with general educatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320425)

Yes. Now all we have to do is define "extreme" and "torture." As the Bush administration (and, sadly, Obama's) showed us, you can stretch the truth to fit your story. I believe the same is true of morals. I would argue that some of the most educated people in the world argued in favor of torture under both administrations. While those with a science background might be likely to frown upon that (torture), it takes an educated person to be the one to argue in favor of such behavior to the point where they can sleep at night believing they've done nothing wrong.

Re:scientific literacy along with general educatio (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320523)

I'm pretty sure we can say that morals aren't purely subjective. For example, practically everyone would agree that extreme torture to another human for 'just a laff' would be at least morally dubious.

The moment you add a qualifier such as "just a laff" (sic), you have shown that morals are not objective. If they were, there would not be a need for a qualifier.

If morals are objective, they are black and white, yes or no. It is wrong to murder somebody is a moral statement. Is it possible to that it would ever not be wrong to murder somebody (murder is different than killing)? However, most things are not black and white. As soon as you have to qualify, you have start down a path of relativism or subjectiveness. In the Judea-Christian tradition, they have "Thou shalt not kill" But as a moral statement, that is pretty subjective, at least in practice. Is it always wrong to kill? What about self-defense? What about in war? What about to protect not life, but property? Obviously, killing and the prohibition against it cannot be objectively held as wrong as sometimes it is permissable.

Likewise, you will find with most moral codes, there is a lot of subjectivity to it. We raise our children to not tell iies and not call other people names. Why? Because that is part of a moral code that society says should exist. Exist, that is until you enter politics, which somehow, means what is important for our children to learn, is not important enough for adults to actually practice and society, for the most part is okay with that.

Why? Because historically, morality was based, right or wrong, on an external source, religion. Now, it is up to the individual. That means, today, morality can shift on a whim and as such, is no longer objective (as objective as religion could make it, anyway) but only subjective.

Re:scientific literacy along with general educatio (1)

vux984 (928602) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320603)

whatever moral means for anyone, since morality/ethics are purely subjective.

Not true. Morality is driven some fairly simple principles. Moral disagreements really only get subjective when those principles are in conflict with each other.

Qualifications? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320085)

You listed rape twice.

Re:Qualifications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320225)

it's ok, he just has more stamina than you.

Re:Qualifications? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320379)

My kingdom for mod points!!!

Ask Mengele! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320089)

You get good ethics from good upbringing (and some genetics).The most unethical people through history has been highly educated.

Re:Ask Mengele! (3, Insightful)

etash (1907284) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320159)

"The most unethical people through history has been highly educated."

cherry picking aka anecdotal evidence aka "any number of examples" do not prove any theory. On the other hand 1 example is enough to disprove such ridiculous claims:


p.s. i can point an equally number of unethical people with really low education: Attila the hun anyone ? timur lang ?

Re:Ask Mengele! (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320283)

On the other hand 1 example is enough to disprove such ridiculous claims:


What about him? How does one example somehow disprove other anecdotal evidence?

p.s. i can point an equally number of unethical people with really low education: Attila the hun anyone ? timur lang ?

Timurlame was well educated for his time. And there was a lot of pond scum on the Roman sides (both East and West) about this time which was both well educated and morally bankrupt.

Re:Ask Mengele! (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320315)

Sorry, "Tamerlane" which is itself some sort of European nickname for Timur [] . I see "Timur-i lang" as a Persian nickname, so I guess my correction above wasn't needed.

Re:Ask Mengele! (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320347)

- You picked Einstein to disprove that 'the most unethical people have been highly educated". Doesn't work. Einstein was highly educated and, for the purpose of this discussion, I will assume that you and I consider him an example of an ethical person. The original argument was "The most unethical people have been highly educated". The converse of that argument is "some ethical people are not highly educated" and "some educated people are ethical" - which would appear to describe Einstein. So Einstein's existence doesn't disprove the statement.

Now, the AC to whom you are replying didn't exactly posit a strong argument but you didn't really counter it.

Re:Ask Mengele! (1)

Time_Ngler (564671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320353)

Didn't Einstein help develop the most devastating weapon mankind has ever known which has already killed millions of people? Doesn't seem so ethical.

Re:Ask Mengele! (2)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320479)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not kill "millions" of people. Hiroshima killed about 80,000 people on impact, and probably a few hundred thousand more afterward from reduced life-span due to radiation exposure. The population of the city was 340,000 - 350,000 at the time of bombing. Nagasaki was slightly less killed, and better stats on injured. Population 263,000.

Those are the only two uses of nuclear weapons for aggression in human history. The firebombing - with conventional warheads and napalm - of Tokyo killed more people.

Perhaps more importantly: ethical compared to what? Not suggesting it to Truman, letting another nation get there first and risking the use of it against the United States before a deterrent could be developed? How about in prolonging the war, and the estimated 1 million US servicemen who would've been killed in the land invasion of Japan, not to mention the Japanese soldiers and civilians who would've gone down.

Or the fact the atomic bomb did finally make Alfred Nobel's ideas about TNT as a weapon a reality: we finally created a weapon that makes large-scale conflict between superpowers irrelevant. Proxy wars may happen, but the atomic bomb almost certainly directly prevented a third war in Europe between the Soviets and NATO, the former of which would've had no reason not to try expanding in that direction as opposed to stuffing around in Afgahnistan.

Re:Ask Mengele! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320427)

You need to read this book:

And then rethink your statement.

Re:Ask Mengele! (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320437)

"The most unethical people through history has been highly educated."

cherry picking aka anecdotal evidence aka "any number of examples" do not prove any theory. On the other hand 1 example is enough to disprove such ridiculous claims:


p.s. i can point an equally number of unethical people with really low education: Attila the hun anyone ? timur lang ?

Attila the Hun, by all accounts, was a very ethical person. He had a different moral code than what we have today, but evidently was very consistent in following it. That doesn't make him unethical. If he hadn't followed his moral code, then he would be unethical.

Re:Ask Mengele! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320527)

Attila the hun was the son of the kings brother and probably had the best education available (in Hungary, at the time). Timur lang was the son of a noble man and also very well educated. True they were not scientist but by the standards of the time I would think they were way ahead of any people with a master today (probably on a professor level). And if you make the claim that they were uneducated because it was so long ago, remember that in a thousand years they will laugh at our feeble attempt of understanding the world too.

Here again confusing correlation with causation (2)

kbdd (823155) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320105)

It may have been better to say something like: "those who choose science as a field of study also endorse more stringent moral norms."

It's not like an idiot about to rape somebody will change his mind after thinking of science...

Re:Here again confusing correlation with causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320349)

"Quick! Think of something scientific!"

Re:Here again confusing correlation with causation (1)

j-beda (85386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320411)

I think the correlation/causation problem is valid, however the article did mention some other studies, one of which seemed to indicate that the mere exposure to science terms just before taking the survey caused people to view the date-rape in a more negative manner. This would seem to be pretty strong evidence for a causal connection.

Another Garbage Survey (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320111)

1. Narrow study group.
2. Highly questionable conclusions.
3. Suspected publication bias.

All in all -1 Overrated story.

Re:Another Garbage Survey (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320307)

Yeah, I suspect anyone that works at a university and observes faculty behavior knows this "study" is fatally flawed.

Some faculty are ethical, others are not - as is the case with people in general. But the assumption of privilege seems to lead to group behaviors that most other people would probably see as, at best, ethically challenged.

Re:Another Garbage Survey (0)

oldhack (1037484) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320477)

i.e. "psychology research".

Not at all clear (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320125)

I would say that an ability to think about and analyze something goes along with one's strength in scientific disciplines, but the self-control required to act on what we know is right? That's a different story. How many people cheat on their partners? (Too many.) How many of them could give a good analysis and explanation of why that's wrong? (Uh, probably 100%.)

Funny how ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320127)

It seems to make you more self-congratulatory.

In other news... (3, Funny)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320135)

A recent scientific study just came out saying that scientists are better endowed and make better lovers then non-scientists.

There, that should put things in our favor when we go out to the nightclubs.

Re:In other news... (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320423)

A recent scientific study just came out saying that scientists are better endowed and make better lovers then non-scientists.

There, that should put things in our favor when we go out to the nightclubs.

Of course, we all know, for the human male there is only so much they can be endowed with. You have to choose which head gets endowed, so to speak. It is by far the rarest of exception to be endowed both in reasoning ability and sexual prowness. And, any males that disagree are just showing they weren't as endowed in reasoning ability as they thought.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320487)

A recent scientific study just came out saying that scientists are better endowed and make better lovers then non-scientists.

Be that as it may...

There, that should put things in our favor when we go out to the nightclubs.

I still can't dance.

correlation != causation (3, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320153)

It is very much possible the more ethical types gravitate towards science rather than scientific literacy made them more ethical. Most likely a whole combination of behaviors and attitudes occur together, being ethical, liking science, etc are all possibly triggered by a deeper primary cause. All these attitudes could be just the external symptoms.

Re:correlation != causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320385)

You're making the gratuitous assumption that the study isn't a steaming load of BS.

Some of the least ethical people I've met had science and engineering degrees from very well respected institutions.

Re:correlation != causation (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320443)

Buddy, if you are going to use anecdotal evidence in an argument, you are probably not best qualified to find fault with that study. Not saying that study is good, just saying, you probably don't have the standing to make that accusation.

Re:correlation != causation (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320399)

There is a lot wrong with the study. To determine scientific attitudes, they asked, “How much do you believe in science?' on a one-to-seven scale." If someone asked me how much I 'believe' in science, my responses would range from glaring at them to outright verbal hostility. I don't 'believe' in science, I examine the evidence. I trust scientists in some things. I don't trust the scientists who did this study.

Looking at this paper [] , it's not clear that they got their statistics right. They used a point-biserial correlation. What is the point of asking people to rate their belief on a scale of 1-7 if you're just going to coerce it into a binary value? The paper would have been MUCH better if they'd made a graph of their data points, as it is now, there is serious doubt that their data shows what they think it did.

A possible red flag: they didn't find any correlation at all between gender and approval of date rape. Do women really approve of date rape at the same level as men? I don't know, but it seems strange to me.

Date rape is such a charged topic, why did they choose that at all?

Read as.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320157)

..we don't like being on the receiving end, so fuck off. Only the people we're after can be terrorized like that, not us.

If they were real scientists (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320163)

they would've refused to give their answers using an undefined unit of measurement.

Big Surprise! (1, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320165)

Critical thinking carries over to ethics. Who would have guessed?

(I have to agree with some others here though that "more stringent" ethics are in the eye of the beholder. At least the study shows that some people are thinking about it, rather than getting all their ethics once a week from some guy who dresses funny.)

Re:Big Surprise! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320237)

In Saudi, ethics are in the eye of the beheader. :)


(anon due to mod points)

Re:Big Surprise! (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320389)

Critical thinking carries over to ethics. Who would have guessed?

(I have to agree with some others here though that "more stringent" ethics are in the eye of the beholder. At least the study shows that some people are thinking about it, rather than getting all their ethics once a week from some guy who dresses funny.)

Critical thinking has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics deals with how well one follows a moral code. There are ethical critical thinkers and unethical critical thinkers. There are ethical simpletons and unethical simpletons. It has no bearing on ones intelligence, just one's morals and a willingness to follow them.

Re:Big Surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320561)

Critical thinking carries over to ethics. Who would have guessed?

(I have to agree with some others here though that "more stringent" ethics are in the eye of the beholder. At least the study shows that some people are thinking about it, rather than getting all their ethics once a week from some guy who dresses funny.)

Critical thinking has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics deals with how well one follows a moral code. There are ethical critical thinkers and unethical critical thinkers. There are ethical simpletons and unethical simpletons. It has no bearing on ones intelligence, just one's morals and a willingness to follow them.

To be fair a lack of critical thinking leads to a lot of bad judgement and decision making. Sure dumping that toxic into the lake is a quick way to get rid of it - oh wait doing so causes major problems long term both to others and potentially you as well. Critical thinking helps with awareness of consequences and avoiding being taken by bad arguments like burning that old woman will prevent future crop failures.

Re:Big Surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320509)

I'm sure the guys who figured out how to use Zyclon B were thinking critically.

Godwin! I declare victory!

Nazi's were highly scientific and cutting edge in (3, Insightful)

drnb (2434720) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320513)

Critical thinking carries over to ethics. Who would have guessed?

Scientific literacy is not equivalent to critical thinking. The Nazi's were highly scientific and cutting edge in their technology.

History (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320181)

Considering the voluntary participation of the science and medical establishments in the former Third Reich and the Soviet Union, I wouldn't bank on it!

Re:History (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320505)

Considering the history of the voluntary participation of all those civilians in bringing Hitler to power...

Article is BS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320211)

Rape is a social construct. Humans are just animals. Can animals "rape" each other?

Would you welcome a society where one could chase down any attractive female and have one's way with her? That's how it happens in the animal kingdom.

I'm scientifically literate, and I know that humans aren't really that much better than ants, that western society pretends to value human life but really does not, and that the vast majority of morals and ethics are more or less arbitrary; values carried over from a more primitive time, when they probably conferred an evolutionary advantage.

Re:Article is BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320247)

lol you're dumb

Re:Article is BS (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320521)

I think it is more correct, interesting, and productive to ask is rape a bad thing in animals.
In animals you still have (for the most part), females choosing who to breed with based on certain factors (the size of plumage for example). Rape in this context is the choice being made for her, based on other factors (speed and strength for example). She only wants to produce the best offspring she can, and sometimes that can mean rape is the best thing that can happen (and she does not necessarily dislike that it happened). Also, interestingly, it is quite possible that rape is entirely necessary in nature; As animals often have convoluted and counter-productive mating habits (stag horns, big is good to get you lots of mates; But actually make surviving harder). Mating criteria that do not promote actual useful abilities, it is entirely possible that these would get out of control and destroy many/all species if it were not counterbalanced by rape. Possibly.

So I would not call it a social construct. It is a breaking of a social ritual, preforming it sufficiently incorrectly.

Ask the Nazi research crew or mice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320219)

Or the experiments in the USA feeding radioactive cereal to retarded children:

Science have a correlation to "ethics" as we know it. Just ask the mice.

If... (2)

3vi1 (544505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320223)

If scientific literacy made people more ethical, us mad scientists would be regarded as weirdos. So, thank Cthulu that's not the case.

Or the other way around? (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320279)

Are more ethical people more interested in science?

Pope Francis (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320303)

Well, the new Pope, Francis is a chemist. Maybe so, let's see.

Is that the conclusion? (2)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320319)

It seems like we can only conclude that scientific literacy helps one to more consistently categorize ethical/unethical behavior. Whether actions follow, especially in times of desperation where ethics are most needed and least cared for, is an entirely different matter altogether. Knowing right is not the same as doing right.

I'll be sure.... (1)

n3tm0nk (2725243) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320361)

To let Ted Kaczynski ( know that despite the fact that he is incarcerated, he is in fact a highly moral man.....

Liberal Bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320363)

From everything that I've seen, the truth has a liberal bias.

Maybe they should take a philosophy course. (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320365)

Maybe those scientifically literate folks should take a philosophy course or two. In doing so, they might find that morality deals with things like right and wrong and ethics with how well you follow a moral code.

A moral person has some sort of code to help them do the right thing. An ethical person follows their moral code. Now we may argue over the merits of their moral code, but that does not change whether or not they are ethical. Likewise, we cannot argue over how ethical somebody's actions are without knowing their moral code.

Since we live in a society, their is an implied moral code and theirfore we judge one's behaviour as ethical or not based on that implied moral code. But in practice, the implied moral code comes up short. What is ethical for a lawyer is often very different than what is ethical for a medical researcher which is often very different for a judge or a grade school student or business.

Historically, for better or worse, religion defined morals in western society. Today, that is not the case, and morality is what the individual says it is. Not that we should go back to religion based morals, but leaving it solely up to the individual is dangerous for a society, too. Sex between an adult and a young teenager is morally wrong in the West, and yet, in many parts of the world, is the norm. Whose moral code is correct? More importantly, is it morally correct for either view to force their view on the other culture?

Star Trek wrestled with this and came up with the notion of the Prime Directive. Of course, that was a moral position and how well they followed it showed how ethical they were.

But, since we don't live in the 23rd century and must muddle through this ourselves. The relativism of the 21st century makes it next to impossible to determine ethical behaviour as the morals that one would use to base that judgement on are no longer objective, but subjective.

Maybe the scientifically literate, should ponder that.

Re:Maybe they should take a philosophy course. (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320525)

How is anything you just wrote relevant to the study presented (bunk as it may be)?

Re:Maybe they should take a philosophy course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320537)

Morals have always been subjective.

Judgemental (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320407)

Sounds like it might be more accurate to say that science makes people more judgemental and close-minded. "more likely to condemn"

I do not know why and how anyone would spin this as "more ethical" or a good thing, but is is pretty obvious that this shows that science in this instance has blinded these people to the ambiguity and greyness of the real world and morality.

Question authority (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320429)

It gives you the moral edge, by definition

Betteridge's Law of Headlines: No (but...), (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320431) makes you better able to make reality-informed decisions based on whatever ethical norms you subscribe to: science is descriptive, ethics are prescriptive. If you're a completely amoral sociopath bent on making people miserable, scientific literacy will enable you to achieve those ends. If you're a consummate altruist and want to improve the lives of those around you, scientific literacy will also enable you to achieve those ends.

Science has WRONG and RIGHT answers, solid rules (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320441)

Scientific minded people are accustomed to working with clear rules, and declaring that "2+2=5" is WRONG. Artsy types, in contrast, say "personally I prefer not to use orange with blue, but of course it's all a matter of opinion."

In science, the laws of physics are inviolate. Try to break them, you are WRONG, and that's not an opinion. Morality is the same. At work, I regularly encounter non-science types who can't understand that the laws of computer science can't be changed based on their preference, that O(N) isn't my preference or opinion.

It's therefore no suprise to me that science types are also comfortable stating that cheating on your spouse is WRONG, whereas artsy types would more often treat that as opinion. Morality, in one sense, is nothing more or less than observing which rules or principles are timelessly applicable, just as science does. A "strict" moral compass is one that believes (understands) that these principles are true even when you don't want them to be, just as a scientist recognizes that mass X velocity = momentum, even when that fact is inconvenient.

Re:Science has WRONG and RIGHT answers, solid rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320565)

In science, the laws of physics are inviolate.

Nope. Newton's Laws: Wrong. Special Relativity: Wrong. General Relativity and Quantum Theory: At least one is is wrong.

Re:Science has WRONG and RIGHT answers, solid rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320575)

"2+2=5" is WRONG" unless you have very large values of 2.

BTW."the laws of physics" are called laws but they are, in reality, theories.

Stupid GOPpers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320549)

This is why liberal arts professors are always so honest and the republicans that support engineering and science are dishonest.

Bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320583)

Scientific study conducted by scientists shows scientific people have "better" morals. Yeah, no bias there...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?