Beta
×

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!

More From Don Marti About Why Targeted Ads are Bad (Video 2 of 2)

Roblimo posted 1 year,20 days | from the do-advertisers-really-think-we-all-have-have-targets-on-our-backs? dept.

Advertising 53

The intro for yesterday's video interview with Don Marti started out by saying, "Don Marti," says Wikipedia, "is a writer and advocate for free and open source software, writing for LinuxWorld and Linux Today." As we noted, Don has moved on since that description was written. In today's interview he starts by talking about some things venture capitalist Mary Meeker of Kleiner Perkins has said, notably that people only spend 6% of their media-intake time with print, but advertisers spend 23% of their budgets on print ads. To find out why this is, you might want to read a piece Don wrote titled Targeted Advertising Considered Harmful. Or you can just watch today's video -- and if you didn't catch Part One of our video conversation yesterday, you might want to check it out before watching Part 2.

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

Slashdot - STOP! (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,20 days | (#45095725)

Stop putting together these multipart stories and then having a new thread to discuss it in. We hashed most of these points in the last thread. Now you're barfing it up onto the main page again... so we can have the same arguments a second time? Either wait until all the parts are there and post it as a whole, or join the threads together so we don't wind up rehashing things. It's wasteful and obnoxious.

Who the fuck are you? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45095805)

I run this joint, now get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich!

signed,
Cmdrtaco

Re:Who the fuck are you? (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096225)

You misspelled "sammich". :-)

Re:Who the fuck are you? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096867)

You misspelled "sammich". :-)

Why are we talking about Lake Sammammish?

I'm thirsty, can you get some iced tea while you're there?

Re:Who the fuck are you? (1)

shentino (1139071) | 1 year,20 days | (#45097859)

That's "sudo" make me a sandwich.

Hand in your fake id AND your geek card.

Re:Who the fuck are you? (1)

Buchenskjoll (762354) | 1 year,19 days | (#45099929)

Why would a taco want to be made into a sandwich?

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (3, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,20 days | (#45095807)

And start using HTML5 for your videos. We're in 2013, Flash is long dead and buried.

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,20 days | (#45095841)

Well, that's actually google+'s fault. So, go bother google about it.

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (4, Insightful)

plover (150551) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096109)

Actually, STOP with video interviews entirely. I don't have flash installed, and even if I did, I can read faster than your talking heads can yammer.

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (4, Interesting)

Aighearach (97333) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096287)

I do have flash installed, but I'm protected by flashblock. But if they think I'm gonna click on a video link, they should probably only interview Woz, because I can't think of anybody else I'd rather hear than read. Not that their blurb gives nerds any reason to even click on a transcript.

Hint to editors: "Nerds" aren't "average people with computer literacy." We're a subculture. The vapid crud you've been pushing will NOT keep us here. The only reason we're still here is that we're giving you a chance to listen to our complaints and change, because we've been here so long. But your chances to change are running out and if you wait for the traffic to bottom out before changing it will be too late.

Geordi Jettison RIP (1)

epine (68316) | 1 year,20 days | (#45097023)

The only reason we're still here is ... because we've been here so long.

FTFY. But it's actually not entirely true. When I've made an effort to jump ship, I find that many of the alternative sites have not yet invented the paragraph.

Seriously, the background music in this video is the all-time low since the day I gleefully blacklisted Jon Katz. But sadly, this still beats conversing in sentence fragments. I've seen articles written by Katz since then, elsewhere, that were quite good. It's just that his round-about mush brain was a terrible fit at geek central. He was always trying to discover if he had anything at all to say by dangling it in front of enraged bulls with an actual clue.

For me, writing is thinking. So I pound out a few paragraphs here whenever I need to consolidate some nuance of my personal perspective on life, out of long habit. Sometimes I write to discharge something old, tired and ugly. Other times I write to embrace a fresh new slant on an old issue. It's useful to have a place to write where I can fully exploit the revolving door of mental evolution. If I were writing under my own name on a blog, or something more formal, there would be far less opportunity to write in the jettison mode.

For about fifteen years I used to patronize one of the first outstanding microbrews in town, in a heritage building with a patio overlooking the waterfront backed by the quaint skyline of the garden city. About eight years ago you could see their business model shifting. First, fetch your own beer from the bar turned into table service, who handed you a menu and didn't even bother to mention the special keg of something especially interesting at the end of the bar. Then the menu went all over the place, including a sojourn through expensive and unpalatable, before fixing the quality problem, but leaving the price alone, in the bracket where mainly tourists are willing to go.

Once a year or so, we meet there out of pure nostalgia. The beer's still good, but everything else is either sad or expensive. True beer lovers are not their target market any longer. We don't belong there. I don't belong, here, really. I just haven't completely kicked the inertia.

Re:Geordi Jettison RIP (1)

Aighearach (97333) | 1 year,20 days | (#45097437)

Jon Katz was so wrong he was funny. Katz posts were to be celebrated.

This is vapid commercial crap. That is a whole different thing. Even if Katz gets old, you can skip over it. But there is almost no content left. I mean that literally. They seem to think they can feed out 98.7% astroturf and keep us around. They can, for a few months. But I don't have this type of content in the rest of my life, by choice. I won't have it here, beyond the denial period. I'm still thinking these bean-counters will do their jobs and realize they need at least 25% legit content to this site popular.

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,19 days | (#45102443)

I'll add my vote to not show videos of talking heads. For something that needs shown, like the story with the amateur rocketeer that shot a rocket to the edge of space with a camera on the rocket, yeah,l show a video. But if it's just words, I don't want to hear it. I want to read it.

The trouble is all the obvious aliterates here (not to be confused with illiterates), obvious by such nonsense as "TL;DR" and "He thru there three ball's thru the hoops over their." Note that to someone who reads, that sentence is as hard to parse as proper English is to an aliterate.

The trouble is, fewer and fewer coming here are nerds. It's wild, when I was in high school nerds were mocked, now everybody wants to join us.

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (1)

Aighearach (97333) | 1 year,19 days | (#45102853)

We need that pyro kid to chase them off with hair spray and a lighter

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45096377)

I guess you didn't watch the video or RTFA.

Targeted HTML5 ads don't work!

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096881)

I keep getting this thing saying You Need A Plugin to View This Content.

The quick answer - No.

I don't.

It's after 2010, time to move on, plug-ins are for old people.

NF;DW (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096965)

No Flash; Didn't Watch

Re:NF;DW (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#45099773)

No need for flash - there were also an article for those of us who read (much) faster than anyone talks. Choice is ok - a few people don't read well. But I never ever "listen to a video lecture". I skip it, and read if reading material is provided. No time for hearing what can be read. Video is for funny kittens . . .

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (1)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,20 days | (#45095823)

No, sorry, slashdot has gone web 3.0 bandwagon. We have a few months until it's all top-ten-lists in a mostly whitespace theme. The only hint of what slashdot was will be in the slightly green borders of some of the ads.

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (2)

Aighearach (97333) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096237)

I didn't get first post, but I want to get first hurl.

huuuuuuuuuUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU uh hck hck hck huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu hck hck hck :,(,,,

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096245)

I especially love it when the story a summary links to is a story on Slashdot's business blog. Do they really expect people to have the same conversation twice, back-to-back? Apparently. And what's with the dual identity anyway? Losing your way much these days Slashdot? Are you under some kind of pressure from Dice?

Since opening day people have complained about they way Slashdot does some things, while predicting its demise based on those things. It's always been campy, but lately I actually worry.

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45097081)

Cut and paste a few +5's from teh previous discussion into here. Instant Karma.

Re: Slashdot - STOP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45097273)

I was absent yesterday. Can I see your notes?

Re:Slashdot - STOP! (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | 1 year,19 days | (#45099279)

So I ignored yesterday's story, and listen to it now.

The two parts are poorly cut - second part is hard to follow without the first part. Music background is annoying. Interviewer doesn't ask good questions. Interviewee doesn't argue convincingly, making the whole thing boring to listen to. The video part of it is useless; the only important part is the audio, a podcast format would've been more appropriate.

And indeed it simply should've been posted in one go. Optionally with transcript (can't take that long to write a transcript of a 20-minute interview where both parties talk slowly).

Who cares (1)

Concern (819622) | 1 year,19 days | (#45099941)

You remind me of the people who always whine about dupes.

It was always amusing that people cared about that. Half the time I missed the original post. The other half I missed the dupe. Maybe you're just checking slashdot too much. :)

You know what? Other people come and have the same discussion. Redundancy of discussion is assumed and unavoidable, since this is a news site, with comments on each of the endless stream stories.

Only one argument in essence (4, Insightful)

YttriumOxide (837412) | 1 year,20 days | (#45095885)

I was HOPING in this second part, he'd say something new; but in essence it seems his entire argument comes down to various themes of "targeted advertising (online) is cheap and therefore anyone can and will advertise anything and you can't trust it".

Is that really it, or did I miss some insight as his voice made me doze off?

Re:Only one argument in essence (2)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096093)

Well, slashdot can deliver twice as many ads this way. Ironic, no?

Re:Only one argument in essence (1)

DexterIsADog (2954149) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096191)

I read the article, and yes, that's the whole point.

He's full of shit, this was a waste of time. The only silver lining is I know he won't target me to buy something related to this blather.

Re:Only one argument in essence (1)

mcrbids (148650) | 1 year,20 days | (#45097467)

Yeah, that's pretty much the idea. And it's an idea I find very intriguing.

Web ads that are clearly tracking me I find creepy and annoying. I tend to feel violated. Yet, I commonly set aside a mailing or magazine ad for later review/action.

Clearly I value one, and have extreme distrust of the other. I've never been able to articulate why that might be. While a bit rambling, the idea is a sound one.

Re:Only one argument in essence (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45097659)

Agree. The argument has merit, but the delivery is lacking.

Targeted ads turn marketing into a cheap hustle: "Hey Buddy, we know you have money, we know what you want to buy, let's just cut to the chase, hmmmm?"

Its the marketing pitch of the following: "Hey sweet-cheeks, I'm a man, you're a woman, lets forget the games and do what comes naturally".

Not generally going to close the deal.

The problem is that most people don't understand how advertising succeeds. It does not succeed by eliciting the "Shut up and take my money!" response, as most people assume. If it did, then targeted ads would be the way to go. But "banner blindness" has long been recognized, and click-throughs are generally pathetic.

However, advertising remains successful by subtly, gently shaping your awareness, tastes and motivation on every level from lifestyle, to lifestyle accessories, to brands, to products, to sellers.

Most people resist the notion that they are manipulated in this way, and thus cling to the "logic" of targeted advertising and the belief that it can only benefit them by presenting them with deals for items that they happen to be on a hair trigger to buy.

That model might work, but it is not the model of advertising that works now, and the latter is the point of Marti's argument -- that targeted ads are undermining the existing successful aspects of advertising. Worse, they do so by taking the worst performing facet of advertising, and positing a "fix" that will allow it to replace the best facets.

Targeting is diminishing all the successful work done towards effectively seducing customers and replacing it with "You know you want it!" Nobody wants to hear that.

Re:Only one argument in essence (1)

Concern (819622) | 1 year,19 days | (#45099931)

He misses an important point, too. If people are successfully able to opt-out of tracking, this does nothing other than concentrate the power to track into the hands of the few giants that people affirmatively log into, and who are also plugged into half the internet. Namely, Google, Facebook.

Easy Fix (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45095919)

I have instituted an easy fix for computers and networks under my control: I block ALL ads, web beacons, disallow DOM storage/LSO storage, tracking, 3rd-party cookies, adblock edge on all computers, disallow prefetch, CSS visited links, geo-enables, and more. Network is basically ad-free. This protects computers from malware, speeds up browsing, disallows tracking, and the Internet for these computers is enjoyable. I suggest the same as it really does help out with not using as much bandwidth. I dislike advertising, big business in general, and will not be tracked if I can help it. We use Debian on computers and disallow proprietary software in as much as humanly possible. Not perfect, but ad-free networks are great. Using router to block all ad company websites as well. Adding to this list daily. You would be surprised the bandwidth saved.

why bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45096003)

Targeted ads are bad because they're more likely to work, increasing waste and consumerism while decreasing environmentally and budget friendly reduction. This is why I have no trouble listening to the Blue Coal ads in old episodes of the Shadow or listening to the ad for the U.K. based ISP sponsering Linux Outlaws, but will block ads from or download only the text of articles sharing screenspace with ads that I fear might work on me.

Re:why bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45096519)

Youre saying targeted ads are more wasteful than non targeted ads?

Stop smoking crack

Re:why bad (2)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,20 days | (#45098767)

more likely to work? and you'll have more money because the ads work better? maybe for a short credit crunch time.

however.. do you know who the targeted ad sellers REALLY target? companies who want to advertise. doesn't matter if the targets are really pregnant 38 year old asian women, as long as the advertising company manages to assure the company that is advertising that the ads are seen by that demographic. they're the real fodder for these companies! "ooh your campaign didn't do so well on fullfilment? maybe try some other keywords!"

Video-so it's harder to spot the flaws in my logic (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096005)

The only reason to make this type of argument in a video is because you know your arguments will not stand up to careful scrutiny (no, I did not watch the video). If you have carefully thought out arguments, you put them in writing so that people can easily follow the flow of your logic, and go back and review how earlier pieces of your argument fit into what you just said.

Re:Video-so it's harder to spot the flaws in my lo (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096147)

Dont play the video and use "Hide/Show Transcript" button. (Like I do)

Re:Video-so it's harder to spot the flaws in my lo (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45096333)

The only reason to make this type of argument in a video is because you know your arguments will not stand up to careful scrutiny (no, I did not watch the video).

He did put it in writing. The written argument was referenced in part 1. Of course, no, you did not read it (or the summary that mentioned it).

captcha:nonsense

Apples to Oranges (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45096043)

Why should the percentage of time someone spends consuming print media be compared with the percentage of an advertiser's budget?

There are more factors at play than a person's viewing time. For example, who's to say that when a person reads print media, they are more focused on what they are looking at so the advertising found there is more effective.

Also, on the other side of the comparison, price as reflected in the budget will not evenly compare to number of consumable hours by the target audience. For example, a tv commercial during the superbowl will take up a huge portion of a budget, yet it will only be consumed for the length of a tv ad.

Percentage of time spent viewing an ad cannot reasonably match the percentage of a budget spent on those ads.

How do you pay for stuff? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45096291)

Let me explain why you tin foil hat idiots are wrong. Everything has a cost to it, time if not money. Nobody makes anything unless they get something out of it. Sometimes, it's a warm fuzzy feeling they're after, but it can also be money. So basically, you need to pay for stuff. Ads are one way to pay for stuff without actually giving up your money. A lot of us just have another window/tab open to do something else, or pop-up blocker. And sometimes the ad is even useful. There have been ads where I was like, "Hey, I haven't heard of this product and it's pretty cool." I still didn't buy it, but I was happy to be informed. Targeted ads just make this even more common. I'm a dude. Without targeted ads, I would get ads about tampons. Now I get ads on video games (which I like) and tech stuff (which I like). This is better. I PREFER this system. If you want to create a video sharing site where a user pays $0.02 every time they watch a video, with zero ads, go ahead. I'm really not mocking the idea; for all I know it could work very well. But stop saying that anyone who's ok with Google/Facebook ads is a moron with no concern for their privacy. Some of us thought about it, and decided we like the ads.

Re:How do you pay for stuff? (2)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096317)

I remember the days when the Internet was free, and site owners paid for their own sites because they liked running them. Aside from a smaller number of fluffy kitty videos, it was generally a better place.

Re:How do you pay for stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45096621)

I'm a dude. Without targeted ads, I would get ads about tampons. Now I get ads on video games (which I like) and tech stuff (which I like). This is better.

It is better if you are just a stereotype. What if you are a dude but also the purchasing manager for an office that provides female specific items? You don't want to know if you can take advantage of a deal that is happening outside of your usual supply chain? What if you are a dude who doesn't like video games? Or what if you do like video games all right, but would be much happier spending your time on something that lazy, unimaginative advertisers haven't pitched to you yet?

Not everyone wants to live in their own feedback loop, slowly becoming a narrow caricature of themselves.

Sometimes it is useful to follow something other than the path of least resistance.

Re:How do you pay for stuff? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#45099793)

Sure. You like ads, you go watch them. I, and many others - don't. We block both trackers and the ads themselves. We don't generate revenue this way. And we don't care if a website fails from not getting any ad revenue either. We really don't care about that.

background music in video (1)

contrapunctus (907549) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096301)

what's with the porn music in the background?

I can tell you why the don't work (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45096463)

I google for something I want, I find the best price over the span of about ten minutes, then I either buy it or decide I don't really need it.

Then google and facebook show me ads for the next six months for something I'm not going to buy.

Those ads are completely wasted on me. Those guys at google aren't as smart as they claim to be.

So what? (1)

Tailhook (98486) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096833)

people only spend 6% of their media-intake time with print, but advertisers spend 23% of their budgets on print ads

You know, I read that and I'm completely baffled. Either I'm a blithering idiot that has somehow missed the obvious reason why one should expect those two percentages to have a smaller (or larger?) spread, or the statement is bullshit and I've spotted it, which isn't saying much, and it's merely intended to trick other blithering idiots.

Which is it?

Where is it written that it is wrong for the spend percent to diverge from the erm, "media-intake" percent? Maybe that audience and the apparently limited time they spend in print is dramatically more valuable to advertisers.

I'm no advertiser, but if I were and someone said that to me, unqualified with any other factors that might establish a reason why there should be some expected correlation, exactly as it is in the summary, I'm pretty sure I'd write that guy off forever as either an idiot or someone who thinks I'm an idiot.

I've haven't read this story, or the last, or watched the video or anything, and I won't because I don't care enough. I'll take it on faith that the summary and the giant glaring hole right in the middle is representative of the muddle headedness of the whole matter and continue to not care.

So stop publishing this crap. I don't care.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45097381)

So, you are complaining that you don't understand a point without context, and because of this, you refuse to refer to the context?

What am I missing here? (1)

MrEdofCourse (2670081) | 1 year,20 days | (#45096969)

So if I get his premise...

Conventional advertising is good because good companies with good products can afford the ads.

Ok, I guess I can kind of buy that if you through in a bunch of caveats and exceptions.

But where he's losing me is on targeted ads being bad because they're too efficient and thus lower the bar to enable any advertiser.

I understand the point... I once took out some very cheap ads that were targeted towards my nephew for an imaginary fake product in an elaborate prank.

However, that only worked because there was no competition. Nobody else bid on ad placements for the exact criteria that I knew perfectly defined my nephew and would result in him seeing that specific ad.

In real-world usage, if I'm constantly searching for shoes, I'm going to get all kinds of shoe vendors bidding to target me. Jimmy's Shoes won't be able to bid as high as Nike, and if what I want are Kenneth Cole, it won't matter anyway.

Even if I'm wrong and bidding isn't a factor, won't we just adjust to discrediting ads the same way that we discredit spam from Nigeria? Won't we rely more on editorial and user reviews as well as brands we've experienced and trust?

Economics != reality, except... (1)

meustrus (1588597) | 1 year,20 days | (#45097957)

I read TFA (but didn't watch the video because I hate watching interviews on the internet). The argument boiled down to:

  1. Targeted ads give less information because economics reasons.
  2. Low quality sellers are indistinguishable from high quality sellers when there's less information.
  3. People therefore avoid targeted ads because they notice there's less information and so it's not as meaningful.
  4. The last part is classic wrong thinking in economics, but I think in this case the rest of the argument is still valid. It just takes a different mechanism. I've never known somebody who thought ads actually communicated anything about how likely the seller is lying. But I have known many people who enjoy creative ads, like Geico (before it just got self-referential and boring) and others I can't remember right now.

    Targeted ads are not creative. They're actually a little creepy most of the time, which is probably a major part of why more people are trying to block them. But more importantly, and here's where TFA has a good point, the ads are usually crap. The kind of crap we've seen in our email for the last decade. The kind that people have already figured out is dumb.

    The point in TFA applies here because it explains how this happens. Targeted ads are dumb because they're cheaper than running expensive ads on high quality sites. That causes more low quality sellers to be able to afford the ads.

    The key here is that we're picking up on the average low quality of the ads, not the underlying reason. Nobody goes around thinking about how much information an ad is signaling (besides its literal content). But in this case, the underlying reason seems directly related to our perception.

nerds! Groom thyselves! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45098323)

Before showing your face in public and advocating for a position, realize that people are judging you based on how you look. You will be a more effective advocate for your position if you don't come off as a weirdo. In this case the video maker has a mountain-man rapist beard.

To bearded video guy: before appearing in public again go to a hair salon (not a barbershop) and pay $30-60 to get a haircut and beard trim done by a woman or a gay man.

Don Marti != Don Martin. (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | 1 year,20 days | (#45099119)

Unfortunately, and the really sad thing is that Don Martin is no longer with us.

They've served up malware too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#45102039)

http://search.slashdot.org/story/13/10/10/1926214/some-bing-ads-redirecting-to-malware [slashdot.org] Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C & load w/ OS + 1st net request resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 [start64.com]

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Browser addons do that, slowing them up)

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775 [slashdot.org]

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

"Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

To trolls "hit & run" bogus downmodding (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#45106903)

My post's on topic, useful, & correct - why down mod? Quoting ULTRON on this one, per my subject, addressed to "hit & run" unjustifiably downmodding my post trolls:

"You are NOTHING to me - 1 by 1, I will destroy you: I will never tire. I will Never SHOW MERCY, & I will never stop, until each and every one of you is gone..." - ULTRON (position 4:27 on the YouTube player control)-> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_-Ar-LTeYk [youtube.com]

* Truth be told? I don't just *think* I've 'destroyed' the one doing the unjustifiable downmodding before - I know I have - hence, their "not man" behavior downmodding 'hit & run' style, yet not technically justifying on topic validly, why.

Their favorite color must be transparent - I see right thru it.

---

(As far as Ultron? He rocks, & James Spader's bringing him to the unwashed masses on the "Silver Screen" in the upcoming Marvel's Avengers 2: The age of ULTRON - whom I always considered one of their top foes!)

"Rue that you are but flesh, While I, am ALL-ABIDING METAL!"

APK

P.S.=> Anyhow/anyways: This place is unbelievable - it condones weak weasels that you can't identify doing bogus abuses of the moderation system + proving they won't stand behind their bogus rating, or their words either - the moderation system here needs that adjustment put into place & it'd be a far better place here (& I'm FAR from the only one asking that around here)).

Especially vs. trollish worms that pull "hit & run" downmods that are technically unjustifiable - & if anyone doesn't like that, they're free to validly technically disprove any points here on the topic regarding hosts efficacy...

(Good luck - you'd need it, plus a miracle (& you know it, hence the bogus downmod, + doubtless futher ac trollinga afterwards))

... apk

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?