dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
| reply to Siryak
Re: How are they gonna know?
Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall.
It denies the ad server connection.
If the connection is denied, they may see it.
If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that.
Do I care? HELL NO!
This is MY computer!
*I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection.
*I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen!
Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me!
They no likey? Tough shitsky!   
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
DCB
@pacbell.net
 from:
dadkins 
| What he said x2!! |
|
theeinstein
Premium
join:2003-07-31
Fernandina Beach, FL
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! What he said 10X
This kind of garbage should piss everyone off. I swear these people arnt worth the gum on the bottom of my shoe!! |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
2 edits | Re: How are they gonna know?
Not needed now.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
Magic501
join:2004-05-24
Lilburn, GA
| reply to dadkins
Very well said, and gets me to thinking. The whole argument stems from the premise " you are accessing the content, by viewing the ads". Such as MSN videos which make you view a commercial before it shows the video you want to see.
That said, why cant we just be informed what the requirements are and choose whether the content is worth it? Instead we are presented with surprises, which are not always good ones, subjected to stealth tactics, etc.....
The original poster mentioned Use of Bandwidth. I like this idea. Since the pipe owners are considering charging more for the content providers, why cant we the users charge to view, display, and get rid of unwanted solicitations?
The time, and effort alone spent trying to make the intrusive stuff "leave us alone" would probably make pay the ISP bill.
M |
|
Edward1978
join:2007-07-23
De Soto, IL | reply to dadkins
Right on, it is my connection. I can block ads if I want. |
|
dlewis23
join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! Its your computer and I respect that, but then you can't expect websites to deliver good content.
We pay for bandwidth too, and our bandwidth costs a lot more then yours does. We have bills to pay too, and ad's pay those bills. |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| said by dlewis23 :said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! Its your computer and I respect that, but then you can't expect websites to deliver good content. We pay for bandwidth too, and our bandwidth costs a lot more then yours does. We have bills to pay too, and ad's pay those bills. then dont pick ads that make people want to block them. take google ads for example, simple and non intrusive but they still pay the bills im sure. and they dont piss people off like those ones with sound and video, im a gamer and sometimes have my sound up and if i minimize to look something up on dont want your website shouting at me i have won a free ipod.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
| reply to dlewis23
They'll deliver whatever they deliver, it's the wild wild west out there, and be bloody sure I'm gonna protect myself.
Maybe remote controls and such should be made illegal too because people like to skip through the commercials?
Hanging up on a commercial caller, oopsie...
Chuck 'em all in a Guantanamo bay? The folks there have real issues to deal with, not some stupid advertising.
Do I really need crap from doubleclick? I think not, but not just think, I block 'em. End of line. |
|
mohito
Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY
| reply to Kearnstd
Actually, google is pretty intrusive, and that's on my blocker list...
For a company that likes to pretend it's so "careful" it kind of sucks.
urchin.com
googlesyndication.com
google-analytics.com
google.com/coop
google.com/safebrowsing
And this is just blockers, but go there directly and they try to get away with redirecting URLs and such, that's unacceptable bullshit to me. Sites like those to make useful, turn off java etc. |
|
Scree
In the pipe 5 by 5
join:2001-04-24
Mount Laurel, NJ
·Comcast
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. And furthermore, if a connection is denied, or no data is transferred, how can they prove it's not just a connection error or other anomaly?
Anyway this is a bullcrap issue. I suppose next will be suing tv makers for having the ability to change channels when commercials are on. lmao |
|
dlewis23
join:2005-04-18
Boca Raton, FL
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd :then dont pick ads that make people want to block them. take google ads for example, simple and non intrusive but they still pay the bills im sure. and they dont piss people off like those ones with sound and video, im a gamer and sometimes have my sound up and if i minimize to look something up on dont want your website shouting at me i have won a free ipod. I agree with that, some of the ads are just annoying. But we often don't have the ability to choose what ads are displayed.
But we still have bills to pay, and i really do fell like you are stealing when you block ads on my site. So ive started banning people who do it. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to dlewis23
said by dlewis23 :said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! Its your computer and I respect that, but then you can't expect websites to deliver good content. We pay for bandwidth too, and our bandwidth costs a lot more then yours does. We have bills to pay too, and ad's pay those bills. *IF* you cannot pay the bills with less intrusive ads and still deliver the content, well, I imagine you are destined to fail. Sorry!
Even if I did not block the ads YOU have, if they are so annoying that your site is an unwelcome ad farm, I will not go to your site!
Take your pick.
You slather BS ads everywhere, I either block them or go elsewhere.
Both scenarios, you lose! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
KUppiano
Karl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA
| reply to dlewis23
said by dlewis23 :said by Kearnstd :then dont pick ads that make people want to block them. take google ads for example, simple and non intrusive but they still pay the bills im sure. and they dont piss people off like those ones with sound and video, im a gamer and sometimes have my sound up and if i minimize to look something up on dont want your website shouting at me i have won a free ipod. I agree with that, some of the ads are just annoying. But we often don't have the ability to choose what ads are displayed. But we still have bills to pay, and i really do fell like you are stealing when you block ads on my site. So ive started banning people who do it. Are you saying you are not responsible for your web site's content? If that's the case, then you need to get a handle on your content. Ad blockers exist because the ads are intrusive, offensive and downright viral in nature. Fix the ads, and the need for ad blockers will go away. |
|
DeeplyShrouded
@comcast.net
from:
dadkins
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. Do I care? HELL NO! This is MY computer! *I* pay for the bandwidth and *I* say what gets sent across my connection. *I* determin what gets displayed on *MY* screen! Sue me? Ha Ha! Byte Me! They no likey? Tough shitsky! Actually Dadkins, they can send anything they want, it's
what gets to your PC that they have no control over.
I totally agree though, people are bombarded with ads, spyware,
malware, viruses all day, every day.
Ever watch to see how many connections are attempted to
your PC in a 24 hour period? You have to put up with all
that and ads screaming "buy me" "click here" and anything
else to get your attention. Don't like the fact I use an
ad blocker and want me to stop using it?
Pay for the upkeep of my PC, my internet connection, and
my time. When that's done, THEN you can make me watch ads.
Since this is as likely as a human surviving on the surface
of the sun, I do believe the choice of what comes into my
PC is still mine, and mine alone, thankyouverymuch.
--Deeply Shrouded & Quiet |
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| reply to dadkins
said by dadkins :Here, one of the ways I have to kill ads is with my firewall. It denies the ad server connection. If the connection is denied, they may see it. If the connection is made, but no data is transferred(images/flash/???), they may see that. That is the worst way to block ads (firewall). The best way is when your browser doesn't even know ad content has been removed. It doesn't ask for what it never sees. Of course the web master can still determine that an ad blocker was used by use of a script to notify when the ad content has been fully loaded in the browser. If the script routine never returns after a certain timeout or an error occurs, you're busted. There are other methods which are more effective. In short, you cannot hide the fact you are blocking ads from someone determined to find out.
--
God is the problem. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Usually, it's easier to just put the ad server's address in the browser's Blacklist.
No mo adsky! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
Timmn
join:2000-04-23
Tinley Park, IL
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| reply to dlewis23
said by dlewis23 :But we still have bills to pay, and i really do fell like you are stealing when you block ads on my site. So ive started banning people who do it. I disagree sir, by shoving content I do not want into my face, you are stealing from me. You are stealing the bandwidth used to deliver it, the computer processing time used to display it and the time I wasted viewing it.
You may ban anyone you choose, it's your site, you may do as you wish with it. The problem is, that your banning method singles out anyone who is using Firefox, if they actually are running Adblock or not.
I am not a programmer, but I am fairly certain that someone out there could write a version of Adblock that would be effective on IE. Then, I guess, you would have to ban all of them also. |
|
rapidrick
join:1999-10-28
Bear, DE
| reply to dlewis23
said by dlewis23 :said by dadkins : Its your computer and I respect that, but then you can't expect websites to deliver good content. We pay for bandwidth too, and our bandwidth costs a lot more then yours does. We have bills to pay too, and ad's pay those bills. I'm not so sure about that, it depends on the viewpoint.... You(Companies) pay more than the users? Perhaps not if you figure in that the users outnumber the companies by what, 10 to 1, 50 to 1, 100 to 1, may 10,000 to one, or higher...
Websites will deliever good content, if they want our $$$ for whatever they are hawking! Otherwise, we take our money elswhere....Seems pretty simple to me..... |
|
