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!

British Woman's Twitter Comments Spark Expensive Libel Claims

timothy posted about a year ago | from the truth-as-defense dept.

Communications 303

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the BBC: "A woman who complained about an unpaid £146 invoice is facing a libel battle that could cost her more than £100,000. Lesley Kemp, 55, took to Twitter claiming that a company based in the Middle East had failed to pay her promptly for transcription work. Now the firm is suing Mrs Kemp, of Milton Keynes, for defamation, claiming up to £50,000 in damages and a further £70,000 in costs. The company, Resolution Productions, based in Qatar, has yet to comment."

cancel ×


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

welcome (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505485)

to capitalism. The law of the jungle.

Re:welcome (-1, Flamebait)

tbird81 (946205) | about a year ago | (#43505691)

How is this capitalism?

This is allowing lawyers, judges and laws to be in control. It's lefty shit.

Re:welcome (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505747)

No, this is class justice.

The Truth is Never Libelous (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43505839)

It is however, seldom in the interest of those who seek a profit advantage from ignorance and misinformation.

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (3, Interesting)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#43506047)

The Truth is Never Libelous

Wrong. The truth is an absolute defense against libel in the United States of America . But if you read a little closer you will see that this woman is British, and British libel and defamation laws [] are nothing like their American counterparts. Scientists have been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus". The fact that his statement is demonstrably true didn't help at all. British libel laws are not only outrageous for their own citizens, but can also be applied to extraterritorial statements, so there is an entire legal sub-industry of Libel Tourism. []

As Americans, we should never take our freedoms for granted. Just glance across the pond for an example of a country at the bottom of the slippery slope.

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43506109)

Scientists have NOT been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus. Sued, yes. Successfully, no. See:

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (5, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#43506185)

Scientists have NOT been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus. Sued, yes. Successfully, no. See: []

Yes he was successfully sued. He only "won" because he appealed and the plaintiffs withdrew their case because of the bad publicity in the tabloids (where the homeopathy practitioners apparently get most of their clients).
British justice: 0
British tabloids: 1

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (2)

Grashnak (1003791) | about a year ago | (#43506219)

In today's life lesson, you learn the difference between two separate types of bogus health care - homeopathy and chiropractic care.

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43506247)

Be careful about assuming we know whether something is "bogus" or not. Many pharm drugs getting approved could be just as bogus, and more dangerous. Placebos have non-bogus effects on people. Therapy can take many forms and biology is complicated.

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43506111)

Here's an idea: stop trying to make everything about the US. The world doesn't revolve around you: you don't have to interject about how proud you are of your "country".

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (2, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43506145)

The world doesn't revolve around you

For me it does, believe it or not.

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (4, Funny)

fibonacci8 (260615) | about a year ago | (#43506265) []

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43506301)

lol, more proof that the world revolves around me. A whole website and diet program was created for my benefit.

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (5, Insightful)

zieroh (307208) | about a year ago | (#43506217)

Here's an idea: stop trying to make everything about the US. The world doesn't revolve around you: you don't have to interject about how proud you are of your "country".

He has a point, though. The UK libel / defamation laws are appalling. So much so that the US had to break some treaties in order to prevent US citizens from being abused by the UK courts for speech which is very much acceptable in the US.

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (4, Informative)

mrbester (200927) | about a year ago | (#43506167)

Before you get all jingoistic about the state of justice in UK, consider that we also look across the pond in horror at how your legal system treats ordinary people. Both seem to be borrowing the worst from each other.

How many comments here are along the lines of "the Constitution is dead"? At least you have one to give you some faint hope.

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (1)

zieroh (307208) | about a year ago | (#43506239)

How many comments here are along the lines of "the Constitution is dead"? At least you have one to give you some faint hope.

Yes, but those people are morons. Believe me, I could cherry-pick some frightening statements by Brits from some of the international forums I frequent that would tend to suggest that the UK is full of complete nincompoops. It would be completely slanted, of course, and so would prove nothing.

Just like your observation about people screaming about the constitution.

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43506289)

As Americans, we should never take our freedoms for granted. Just glance across the pond for an example of a country at the bottom of the slippery slope.

I'd say the US is at the bottom of the slippery slope with regards to the criminal justice system, however. Highest incarceration amongst developed countries by a landslide, and known for executing the young and mentally ill.
So before you start trumpeting the freeeeeeeeedoooooomsssss of the US of A, you may want to take a more holistic view of things.

Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43506307)

Try reading your own link.

Libel tourism isn't about truth not being a defence under English law.

Re:welcome (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505781)

How is this capitalism?

This is allowing lawyers, judges and laws to be in control. It's lefty shit.

Lawyers, judges, and laws are the implements of conservatism. Lefty shit would be to run a mob into her home to nonviolently stab her to death.

Lawyers (1, Insightful)

gd2shoe (747932) | about a year ago | (#43505935)

Lawyers, judges, and laws are the implements of conservatism.

Absolutely true. It's also true that these are the implements of liberalism. In short, they are the implements of those in power.

More to the point: the world doesn't just seem to be run by lawyers, it largely is.

Re:welcome (1)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year ago | (#43505943)

The term "conservatism" (as with most Left/Right arguments) is redefined constantly, by the person speaking, and when convenient. American (libertarian-leaning) conservatives would disagree with you - claiming that "conservatism" was a small-government grouping.

Re:welcome (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43506155)

For some people, "Conservative" is shorthand for "everything I don't like." This is a subset of people who try to stereotype. The opposite is people who think "Liberal" is shorthand for "everything I don't like." You can recognize these people because they assume a terrorist will be conservative, or that Obama is the antichrist because he is liberal (and those two go together).

Re:welcome (1, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43505959)

Libertarian capitalism is where the government exists to solve contractual complaints and crimes. Libel is a crime, and so it's libertarian to have the courts used to oppress people. Though the libertarians claim it's not the intention when someone does it, but ask them what the role of the government is when something like that is in the news, and someone might accidentally tell the truth. Modern libertarianism (at least in the US) is plutocracy.

Lefty shit protects the people and the free speech so that this crap doesn't happen.

Re:welcome (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43506019)

No, plutocracy is plutocracy and libertarianism is libertarianism. The idea that you should be free to live your life and accept the consequences for you actions is a very libertarian idea, which contrasts with plutocracy where you are not free to live your life but you are required to accept the consequences for your actions. I'm really tired of people redefining opposing political ideologies whenever it's convenient.

Please make an effort to become educated about what you're arguing for or against before you make statements like this.

Re:welcome (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43506091)

You are confusing ""libertarian ideas" and libertarians/libertarianism. There is nothing under plutocracy which requires oppression. It's just that, like all other governments, it leads to oppression.

I'm not redefining political ideologies. They are already redefined. I'm just using the most common modern definition of them. If you don't like that, go change the language, don't complain to the person using it correctly that you disagree with the definition. Go move to France and get on the committee that defines the language. Anal-retentiative pricks like you belong in a prosceptive zone. Descriptive languages are defined based on use, and you've already lost that battle. Arguing with correct people because your opinion is that English should be descriptive with you as the dictator of description is just silly.

Re:welcome (1)

tmosley (996283) | about a year ago | (#43506231)

Don't blame libertarians for your fascist country's idiotic rules.

Truth is the best defence (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505491)

If what she said is true then she has nothing to worry about. However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.

Re:Truth is the best defence (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505529)

If what she said is true then she has nothing to worry about. However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.

people without money don't receive justice against the people buying laws.

Re: Truth is the best defence (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505557)

Truth is not always a defence against libel in the UK. Publishing the truth with intent to damage or for malicious purpose can also be libel.

Re: Truth is the best defence (2)

PhamNguyen (2695929) | about a year ago | (#43505601)

Actually that seems to be the case here. Basedo on this Guardian article [] , where she says "He said that I was damaging his reputation and that it was all done maliciously" (while nowhere in the article does it say that the company disputes the truth of her claims)

Re: Truth is the best defence (5, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43505727)

But this case has not gone to court yet, and her solicitor is persuing it no-win no-fee, which implies he believes she's on the winning side.

It's a myth that truth isn's a defense against libel in the UK. If you prove that what you said is true, then you win the case.

The myth seems to come about because the burden of proof is on the person who made the comment to prove the truth of the statement, not the accuser of libel to disprove it. []

Here, banking records will easily prove her to be telling the truth or not. I suspect this is simply a company trying to bully her with a meritless law-suit.

Re: Truth is the best defence (2)

PhamNguyen (2695929) | about a year ago | (#43505899)

Yes you seem to be right, thanks for the correction.

Re: Truth is the best defence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43506303)

I suspect this is simply a company trying to bully her with a meritless law-suit.

OK, buddy you're next.

Correct. (-1, Troll)

Weezul (52464) | about a year ago | (#43505755)

Truth is no defense against libel in the U.K.

An interesting attack on U.K. libel law might be for foreigners to sue various MPs for things they've said.

Re:Correct. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505853)

MPs have parliamentary privilege when they speak in the house of commons. They can say whatever they like and not be sued. Also whatever they say can be reported without any liability so take care when you annoy an MP.

Wrong (was Re:Correct). (5, Insightful)

Simon Brooke (45012) | about a year ago | (#43505889)

Truth is no defense against libel in the U.K.

An interesting attack on U.K. libel law might be for foreigners to sue various MPs for things they've said.

Wrong, on all points. Comprehensively.

  • There is no such thing as United Kingdom law. There's English law, Welsh law, Scots law, and Northern Irish law. They're all different.
  • Under all of them, truth is a defence in a libel case.
  • However under English law, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the allegedly libellous statement was true (see People v Croswell, 1804).
  • Because of parliamentary privilege [] , no member of parliament can be sued for libel for anything said in parliament.

I know that Slashdot is now primarily a place for the immature and ill-informed to run off at the mouth on topics of which they know little, but that was a particularly clueless contribution.

Re:Correct. (2)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#43505895)

I still don't understand this. The dictionary flat out defines libel as a published statement that is FALSE and damages someone's reputation. Do they not actually call it libel in the UK? I mean, if something that hurts your reputation (but is TRUE) is somehow wrong/punishable, then I guess that's fine (no it isn't - it's stupid), but calling it "libel" when it has nothing to do with the word "libel" makes . . . no . . . . fucking sense whatsoever.

Re:Correct. (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#43505897)

Truth is no defense against libel in the U.K.

Not true. Truth is a defense, as long as it's provable.

The issue with UK defamation law is that burden of proof falls on the accused.

A foreign company filing such a suit is a novel approach though.

I wonder whether defamation or hate crime would win if the two went head to head....

Re:Correct. (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#43506321)

A foreign company filing such a suit is a novel approach though.

Not at all, it's called, "forum shopping," and it made England a popular destination for libel lawsuits for a number of reasons.

Evidence submitted by the Media Law Resource Centre (MLRC) []
New rules to discourage 'libel tourism' in Britain []

Re: Truth is the best defence (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43505981)

But is publishing a harmful truth with the intention of helping people not get the same problems be "intent to damage" or "malicious"?

Re: Truth is the best defence (1)

fluffy99 (870997) | about a year ago | (#43506245)

Truth is not always a defence against libel in the UK. Publishing the truth with intent to damage or for malicious purpose can also be libel.

Which actually makes some sense because defamation (via libel or slander) it the act of damaging someones reputation not necessarily by lying. For example if I ran around and told everyone that the someone was having an affair, it still damages their reputation whether it's true or not. []
libel - defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. []
defamation - the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny:

Re: Truth is the best defence (1, Informative)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#43506335)

Are you serious? Are people honestly OK with this over there?

If I publicly state the CEO of a company is essentially stealing from a voluntary funding program inside said company (think donation jar) for orphans and using it to buy 3 course meals for himself, because I'm angry it's happening and want the world to see how horrible he is, can I seriously be sued for defamation?

It's true! I don't understand how the law could punish me for bringing something horrible to light just because the guy might actually need to face the shame associated with his actions.

Re:Truth is the best defence (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43505597)

If what she said is true then she has nothing to worry about. However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.

If it were in the US, that would be true. But she is in the UK. And in the UK, truth is not an absolute defense against libel charges.

Re:Truth is the best defence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43506013)

And in the UK, truth is not an absolute defense against libel charges.

It is, but the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant.

Re:Truth is the best defence (1)

MrHanky (141717) | about a year ago | (#43505629)

That may be so in other countries, but in England? No.

Re:Truth is the best defence (1, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43505661)

If what she said is true then she has nothing to worry about. However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.

Civil claims are ruinously expensive no matter what(even best case, a jurisdiction with robust speech protections and an anti-SLAPP statute with teeth, she'd need somebody to take the case on contingency, and have a sufficiently flexible schedule that 'Oh, just getting embroiled in an ongoing court case' won't, say, get her fired). Also, you might be thinking of American libel law. Over on her Britannic Majesty's side of the pond, the state of libel law is notoriously ghastly.

Re:Truth is the best defence (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about a year ago | (#43505985)

Not in Britain. But I'm neither a Brit nor a barrister, so a Brit barrister would be able to tell you better.

Re:Truth is the best defence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43506207)

However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.

If she's the one getting sued, why does she have to prove it is true? Does no one care about presumed innocence? No, I don't care that it's a civil matter; presumed guilt is wrong.

Really her own fault (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505509)

She should have known better than to speak while British.

I don't understand the point. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505531)

If she made up the allegations, then she is guilty of slander and I have no sympathy. If she is telling the truth, it should be a quick court case.

Why is this news?

Re:I don't understand the point. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505559)

Because twitter.

Re:I don't understand the point. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505589)

Because Arabs.

Re:I don't understand the point. (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#43505603)

Yes, it was on the internet. Therefore entirely new laws need to be passed and all existing laws and precedents don't apply.

Re:I don't understand the point. (2)

PhamNguyen (2695929) | about a year ago | (#43505567)

Based on the article, it would seem that everything she said was either true, or opinion (she called their actions "disgraceful"), but she felt intimidated by the giant potential liability, and couldn't afford council. I imagine that even if everything you say is 100% true (or opinion), it is very intimidating to have to represent yourself in a trial where you face a liability of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Re:I don't understand the point. (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#43506315)

Considering that if what she said is true, all she needed was to present the court with relevant bank statements, I'm failing to see the risk.

Re:I don't understand the point. (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year ago | (#43505569)

You have no sympathy for a large company trying to bully a woman out of 50,000 units of money -- over a claim about them not paying 150 units of money. In other words - if you said that I withheld a dollar from you, it would then be fair to claim that I caused $333 of damage to you? Really?

Re:I don't understand the point. (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43505699)

You have no sympathy for a large company trying to bully a woman out of 50,000 units of money -- over a claim about them not paying 150 units of money. In other words - if you said that I withheld a dollar from you, it would then be fair to claim that I caused $333 of damage to you? Really?

It isn't a "large company". It's this guy, personally. []

I don't know how large his company is; but behind every corporate veil, there is some asshole making the decisions.

Re:I don't understand the point. (2)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#43506131)

Quite right.

It's a shifty company trying to use the legal system for strategic reasons.

Re:I don't understand the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505607)

It's the UK, just because she's telling the truth doesn't mean she lose a lawsuit over it. Without truth being a defense against libel, it's one of the go-to places to silence anybody who says something about you that you don't want public.

Re:I don't understand the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505621)

A quick case that will cost less than £146 of her money, time and worries? Doubtful.

True or not, the case is is just to terrorize people to censor themselves and shut up giving up their rights for fear of being stomped by these.bullies for just a few quids. While losing won't cost them anything there is little we could do.

Re:I don't understand the point. (1)

faedle (114018) | about a year ago | (#43505703)

Methinks you don't understand how "court cases" work, especially in libel cases in the UK.

I have to deal with libel on /. every day... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505535)

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

Nearly 230++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March/April 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 230 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/April 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/April now, & 230++ 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 diskcac

Re:I have to deal with libel on /. every day... ap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505619)

If you'd lose weight, you wouldn't deal with half as much libel. So get off your dead ass.

Re:I have to deal with libel on /. every day... ap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505717)

Alexander Peter Kowalksi's low intelligence, extreme narcissism, and histrionic personality make him unsuited for anything but menial labor.

Alexander Peter Kowalski will now prove the above statement to be correct.

Why not disprove my points then, troll? apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505903)

See here, explains it all -> []

* :)

I.E./Summary: Trolls had a challenge put to them to validly disprove my points in the post I just replied to - result? Trolls FAIL... lol!


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...

Ah yes "geek angst" @ it's 'finest' (not), vs. facts & truths = downmod by /. weak trolls!

... apk

Re:I have to deal with libel on /. every day... ap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505813)

$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. - []


[to apk] Get an account retard. If you format your password as crazily as your posts no-one will ever crack it. - []


[to apk] You are the most consistently annoying creature on the internet. There are people worse than you, just like cancer is worse than psoriasis, but you're more like the latter: pervasive, annoying, and always cropping up when one has mostly forgotten about it. You are that indeterminate, continuous itching that slowly erodes someone's mood until they consider cutting off a part of themselves just to stop it for a while. And like psoriasis, you're auto-immune and not fully understood by science. Slashdot continuously makes it worse by scratching that itch over and over again. It's not smart. It just encourages the disease. But everybody's got a limit to their patience. There is no cure for you. But at least, when slashdot dies, you will die with it, and there will be peace. - []


Alexander Peter KowalskI and anyone arguing with him are insane. I saw their crazy tirades once and googled his name, and HOLY SHIT. This guy has mini battle raging all over many sites for some of the most inane shit you can think of. He meticulously catalogs the people who have crossed him and works to MAKE SURE everyone understands they are fools. Now, they well be fools, but by his meticulous and obsessive actions Kowalski (APK) has proved without a shadow of doubt his absolutE insanity. I haven't even argued with this guy so don't think I'm part of these internet crusades. All this I've found by googling his name. The trove of flaming and incomprehensible obsessive agression is humongous and both funny, and pathetic to varying intense degrees. Just google if you are curious about the kinds of crazy that are out there." - []


I'm convinced APK is serious, he has got battles raging everywhere, meticulously catalogued, yet he thinks this is proof of his knowledge and experience, not obsessive insanity. And making that point doesn't make him reconsider, it incites him. He also seems to think what looks like many multiples of people saying this are one or a few people who are out to get him. Just read my post and google Alexander Peter Kowalski. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalski ubuntu touched my junk liberally. he strapped me in to his HOSTS file and he couldnt keep his offensive hands off of me - []


[to apk] Hey man, I know this is important to you, but maybe you should talk to someone outside of the internet about it? I mean, you sound really batshit insane. - []


[to apk] You're an AC and you say you have impersonators? - []


ghod bless you APKtroll for bringing some much needed balance and reason to this thread! - []


[to apk] APK, you suck. Go die in a fire. The hosts file in Windows is a _terrible_ way to filter internet traffic. - []


I'm replying just so you'll add me to your quote list. - []


Alexander Peter Kowalksi's low intelligence, extreme narcissism, and histrionic personality make him unsuited for anything but menial labor. - []




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! ;-)

Re:I have to deal with libel on /. every day... ap (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505969)

Slashdot, we BADLY NEED a button at THE TOP of the message that says HIDE THIS FUCKING SPAM. Maybe another one that says ADMINISTRATORS, NUKE THIS BASTARD IMMEDIATELY. A lot of us browse at -1 so we can conscienciously moderate. I have rescued a few worthwhile comments from unfair -1's they reached just because enough assholes disagreed with them.

Or maybe, all we need is a -2 score level for outright spam with the presumption that if enough moderators pile on to lower something to -2, it's not even worth seeing that shit.

Re:I have to deal with libel on /. every day... ap (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year ago | (#43506271)

Unless you create a -1, Spam downmod and badly punish those who use it on stuff that isn't spam (maybe if a dozen metamods agree the comment isn't spam, the editors take a look and if justified, the modder's karma is reset to the minimum possible value), this doesn't solve the problem.

Re:I have to deal with libel on /. every day... ap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505925)

Did anyone notice that this asshole's fucking spam got cut off shorter than has been the case? I think slashdot has improved their software in the last couple of days.

This is a classic libel case (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43505571)

While I personally don't like the existence of libel laws, this is not the case of misusing it to censor criticism or somebody getting into trouble for an innocent joke. If the company can prove that they payed her promptly then this is libel, otherwise it's not and she can sue them back for wrongful accusation. Nobody has a right not to get sued.

Re:This is a classic libel case (0, Redundant)

Kuroji (990107) | about a year ago | (#43505685)

This is Britain. All they have to do is say 'she said these bad-but-true things with the intention of hurting our reputation' and they win. That's all there is to it.

Re:This is a classic libel case (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year ago | (#43506343)

Not true at all. However, as you say: This is Britain.

Even if they win, the courts are very likely to award £1 damages and no costs. Judges wont want to bankrupt a woman over a single twitter comment, especially if it was true.

Odd British libel law (1, Interesting)

Brett Buck (811747) | about a year ago | (#43505577)

Why is the truth not considered a valid defense in British courts? Doing otherwise would seem to invite these sorts of suits.


Re:Odd British libel law (3, Interesting)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about a year ago | (#43505617)

The court has to determine the facts of the matter -- these facts can not be merely assumed as you seem to imply. Thus the court case, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant was dishonest and caused harm -- so the court must now make a decision on these claims from the evidence and arguments submitted.

However, the fact that a lawyer and a barrister have both taken up her case Pro-Bono shows that her statements were indeed based upon fact.

Re:Odd British libel law (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about a year ago | (#43505793)

Sir, I humbly request you not troll this discussion forum by contradicting yourself so blatantly. No good can come of it.

Barristers and Solicitors (3, Interesting)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43506137)

Interesting that you said "a lawyer and a barrister have both taken up her case Pro-Bono [publico]" [emphasis mine]. I was under the impression that "barrister" was the British term for attorney and lawyer. A quick check on wikipedia shows otherwise. Thanks for educating me, or at least pointing me towards getting educated!
Barristers [] and solicitors in england are the splitting of the legal profession into two categories.
-- Those who can represent themselves in place of the client and conduct litigation on behalf of the client are called solicitors [] , and solicitors are attorneys at law [] .
-- A barrister is not an attorney and is usually forbidden, either by law or professional rules or both, from "conducting" litigation. This means that, while the barrister speaks on the client's behalf in court, he or she can do so only when instructed by a solicitor or certain other qualified professional clients, such as patent agents.
-- A lawyer is one "learned in the law", and can be an attorney, counsel, or a solicitor.
-- An is the official name for lawyers in certain jurisdictions, e.g. Japan + Sri Lanka + South Africa + U.S.A. []

Re:Odd British libel law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505673)

That's what the whole suit is about, I don't see what the big deal is. Woman says company fucked her, company says no and sues. Court will determin which one is telling the truth. That's kind of the point of courts.

Linux Advocates (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505581)

Dear Linux Advocate,

Money doesn't grow on trees. And, Linux Advocates is growing. Naturally, we anticipate operating costs and hope to be able to meet them.

But, any amount you feel you are able to donate in support of our ongoing work will be most surely appreciated and put to very good use. Your contributions keep Linux Advocates growing.

Show your support by making a donation today.

Thank you.

Dieter T. Schmitz
Linux Advocates, Owner []

Am I the only one...... (1, Insightful)

m.shenhav (948505) | about a year ago | (#43505583)

....who thinks slander is a strange thing to ban legally? As a skeptic it seems both epistemically and pragmatically difficult to work with such laws, and I feel we should try and create unlegislated social pressure to help the truth float to the surface instead.

Re:Am I the only one...... (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43505655)

Technically this is libel; but slander too can damage one's reputation.

Re: Am I the only one...... (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#43505657)

I agree completely Mr. Child Molester...

Re: Am I the only one...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505729)

hahahahahahaha. I find your usage of humor to illustrate why there are slander laws quite amusing. Good work sir! (even though I heard you fingerbang goats!)

Re: Am I the only one...... (0)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#43506227)

So do I, but I'm serious.

Re:Am I the only one...... (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | about a year ago | (#43505737)

The problem with your suggestion is twofold, simply stated:

A) People are easily convinced of falsehoods, and nowhere near so easily convinced otherwise when the truth comes to light.

B) Companies that can afford to throw tens of thousands of dollars/sterling/euros at someone for complaining about less than two hundred can just as easily afford public relations efforts to concoct and reinforce damaging lies about people they feel are a threat, feeding back into A.

Re:Am I the only one...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505769)

I don't find it strange at all. What I find strange is how unpopular holding people responsible for the damage they do is these days.

Re:Am I the only one...... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about a year ago | (#43506241)

I know. The people who believe random rumors and respond to them in a way that harms the individual the rumors speak of seem to always get away, just like those who trample others in crowded theaters.

Re:Am I the only one...... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43505811)

....who thinks slander is a strange thing to ban legally? As a skeptic it seems both epistemically and pragmatically difficult to work with such laws, and I feel we should try and create unlegislated social pressure to help the truth float to the surface instead.

The theory is based largely on the...unimpressive... history of 'social pressure to help the truth float to the surface instead'. Unless you really suck at character assassination, you should be able to get a juicy lie into circulation enormously faster, further, and more durably than any mundane and tedious truth.

(Now, of course, some slander/libel/sedition/etc. laws are pretty specifically aimed at "Don't say mean things about People More Important Than You, especially if they are true, and those are a sordid lot; but the idea that lying about somebody in a way calculated to damage them is treated as a flavor of damage is because that has generally proven to be true)

Milton Keynes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505585)

Fascinating name. It is as unexpected a pairing as Barack Bush or Pat Dawkins.

Re:Milton Keynes (1, Offtopic)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#43505635)

It is as unexpected a pairing as Barack Bush

Not really, if you think about how similar Bush and Obama have been. On foreign policy, Obama mainly continued Bush's foreign policy. He expanded drone strikes. On domestic issues, Bush was more to the left than you would expect. He had a huge expansion of medicare, for example. Dick Cheney supported gay marriage before Obama did (he also flip-flopped while he was still in office).

Re:Milton Keynes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43505637)

Relevant Yes Minister [] .

"I only got as far as Milton Keynes economic theory."

Ugh, Twitter (0)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#43505587)

As a baseball fan, I follow news on Twitter because that's where sports news breaks anymore (like it or not). But it's a lot like participating in the old newsgroups from the late 80s / early 90s - there's way too much cat fighting and name calling. Twitter is "instant", and many people haven't learned to self filter.

The more things change, the more they stay the same I guess.

Depends on your definition of "Prompt" (1)

TeddyR (4176) | about a year ago | (#43505611)

I guess it really Depends on your definition of "Prompt" either legally or culturally. In some cultures payment of invoices after 30-120 days is considered normal business practice.

Re:Depends on your definition of "Prompt" (3, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43505665)

The contract should specify payment terms. Clearly a prompt payment is one that is within the time scale in the contract. One day later is not prompt.

Re:Depends on your definition of "Prompt" (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43505739)

I guess it really Depends on your definition of "Prompt" either legally or culturally. In some cultures payment of invoices after 30-120 days is considered normal business practice.

Based on the bios [] , I'd say that this isn't a cultural misunderstanding(unless 'self-satisfied marketing flacks who refer to themselves as "creatives"' are a 'culture' now).

Somone should tell the company about a woman (2, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about a year ago | (#43505827)

in Malibu that goes by the name of Mrs Streisand.

Unfair courts (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#43505907)

Mrs Kemp said she could not afford legal representation, and feared the law suit might ruin her financially.

More than half the population in the United States cannot afford an attorney to go as far as representing them in a civil suit. I suspect it's even worse in Britain. The court systems are thus fundamentally unfair just because of that aspect alone. I don't know what the best fix is, but a number of ideas have been suggested. One of them is to treat all suits between corporations and people under procedural rules that simplify the process and allows the judge to block sneaky things that corporations usually do. Another is to prohibit use of an attorney by the corporation if the person is not represented.

Re:Unfair courts (3, Insightful)

cbhacking (979169) | about a year ago | (#43506001)

My understanding is that it's common in the UK for the court to award legal costs to the winner of the civil case, even if it's the defendent. In this particular case, the defendant has legal advice already, but they're working under an arrangement where they will not charge if the case is lost... and I suspect that if the case is won, the money for her defence will end up coming out of the plaintiff's wallet.

The real lesson to be learned here is (1, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#43505921)

Shut the fuck up and stop posting shit on twitter.

Problem solved.

Re:The real lesson to be learned here is (3, Insightful)

ninjacheeseburger (1330559) | about a year ago | (#43506211)

Why, and let this company screw her over?

Should you not leave negative reviews on Amazon or Ebay?

Being able to tell the world about your experience with a company, is a good form of consumer protection, as it gives the company a good reason to make sure a customer leaves satisfied. If she'd positive tweet, this company may have received extra business so it can work both ways.
The real lesson here is for British politicians and courts to tidy up our messy libel system (assuming she is telling the truth) so companies using these tactics are out of pocket so they think twice about filing these kind of law suits.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>