Slashback: Panama, Leeches, Comeuppance 393
Excuse me, is this well already poisoned? PHPee writes "Yesterday Slashdot posted an article (only thieves block pop-up ads) regarding anti-leech.com's anti-theft campaign. I happened to be one of many people who sent an email to anti-leech, explaining my disappointment, and I received an auto-responder message today, indicating anti-leech has posted a FAQ regarding its anti-theft campaign."
Wish he'd have been arrested for fraud, instead. MojoT writes "Following up from a previous story, Madison Priest, the so called inventor of a broadband Magic Box, was arrested Friday on drug trafficking charges and possession of a firearm by a felon. He must have been confusing the bit rate of his Magic Box with the number of hits he was getting off his stash."
You mean this stuff is just a kind of data? pelle writes "As a (non Panamanian) geek in Panama, I've been following the UDP story quite heavily. The Panamanian paper La Prensa reports that the Panamanian Supreme court has suspended the infamous order to block UDP's used for VOIP the Enteregulador (the governments regulator of utilities). The suspension was done on a complaint by a company called Net2Net Corp. There has been strong uproar amongst people in Panama about the blocking of the UPD's. So this is seen as a welcome thing. The article quotes Gonzalo Córdoba, the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation as saying "Blocking the ports for accessing voice is a form of censorship". For Spanish readers the article is at: La Prensa Note, my Spanish aint all that yet, so I might have missed out several finer points."
I'll wait out the battle in my hobbit hole, thanks. An anonymous reader writes "First scooped at theonering.net: The official Lord of the Rings site has put up an amazing feature that goes into a lot of detail on the motion-capture techniques and programming that goes into the movies' battle scenes. It is one of the best-designed web features I have seen, very informative with interviews from the people working on it and interactive "design your own army"-type features. This should answer any questions left by the recent Slashdot article, and raise many more... (Requires Flash to view.)"
Don't PanIP Timothy Beere writes "Just a quick update to the Slashdot faithful. I received notice several weeks ago that PanIP was suing me and the PanIP Defense Group for the www.youmaybenext.com web site.
The lawsuit claims trademark infringement, defamation and unfair competition. They obviously see the web site as a big threat to their grand plan of suing the potential thousands of e-commerce sites that they could have targeted.
In a preliminary court hearing last week, a judge resoundingly denied their request for a Temporary Restraining Order against the web site. This is the same judge that will be hearing the patent case. We will soon be filing a motion to have PanIP pay all attorney's fees for the web site case as we feel this was nothing less than a litigation threat meant to restrain our free speech. Apparently PanIP doesn't think we have the right to inform people about what they're are doing. Or maybe they are feeling very uncomfortable with the spotlight shining on them.
One other note. We currently have 16 members in our FightBack Defense Group. The FightBack group will soon be posted on the web site.
On a personal note. I can't say enough about the overwhelming response I got from the original slashdot post. I knew if I could get the word out there that people would be disgusted by what PanIP is doing.
We are in the process of filing our responses for the Group and the case will soon be under way in the court. We are still hunting for good prior art in an effort to have their patents invalidated. We intend to stop PanIP and we need your support!"
"The only way..." (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"The only way..." (Score:2)
*BAM BAM BAM*
Excuse me, Mr Emalb, it appears you are using a not Homeland approved browser. You will be assimilated now. Because as we all know, only terrorists support ad-blocking.
If you want people to read your content... (Score:3, Insightful)
What I really like about PopUP ads is that if you tell Mozilla not to load them, it won't load them. (I'm borrowing my mother-in-law's PC on vacation, and it only has IE - it's been popup city here....)
Re:If you want people to read your content... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't forget to clear the browser cache and URL history. You don't want her to start typing in www.hotbot.com and seven keystrokes into it do an AutoComplete to a different hot website.
Learn from my mistakes.
Re:If you want people to read your content... (Score:5, Funny)
It is the only way (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly I have *no* problem with Anti-Leech. I think they put it quite eloquently in their faq:
You are the thief! You steal my screen by poping up pop ups
If you don't like pop ups, then use a pop up blocker! But then you are not welcome to Anti-Theft protected websites as you are not ready to give something in return.
If a website wants to use Anti-Leech, *let it* There's no reason it shouldn't.
True, I think that people who say "We should force you to view our ads if you use are service" are missing a key element that people who don't want to view they ads probably aren't going to click on them.. but hey it's their content and their choice to block, charge or whatever with it*
*So long as they don't try to prevent others from providing the same content *cough* siaa *cough*
Re:It is the only way (Score:5, Insightful)
You just touched on the issue generally known as "equal protection"
and it is exactly why the people making all this anti-consumer litigation
noise right now (??AA) should simmer down. Any precedents they establish
might end up creating the very tools with which they are broght down.
On a bigger political note, wonder at the enormous power grab that the
Bush administration is making. They are 2, or maybe 6, or maybe 10,
short years away from handing to their political opponents the same power
which they have taken for their own ends in the Executive branch.
By the time the Federal reorganization is really done (probably not even
within 5 years, honestly), there could easily, and likely will be, a party
in power who is not only in opposition to the Republicans, but also, could
very easily have a radically, unpredictably different agenda for how that
power should be used.
I believe that is precisely the reason why no administration prior to
the Bush II has ever made such a sweeping change, positioning the
executive branch to have imbalanced power vis-a-vis the other two
branches. All they are doing is creating specific means for a future
regime to take it a step further. Much further in the direction they
are headed today, and we will have to call it tyranny by Anybody's
standards.
Re:"The only way..." (Score:3, Insightful)
If people don't see the ads, the site can't continue, and so people no longer get to visit it..
If I put up a website, it is because I have something to say or something to sell. I don't expect anyone to pay for my site if I have something to say. I did it out of my own volition. What I get is a warm, fuzzy feeling that I've made someone else's day, or in the case of a commercial site, I get customers.
Ad banners should go the way of the dinosaur. Their benefit is negligible while their drain on the web community is measurable and tiresome.
Google (Score:2, Funny)
Very funny, IMHO.
Re:Google (Score:4, Insightful)
hint #2: you don't succeed by creating a business that needs screenfuls of FAQs to justify it's existence.
Does anyone else think... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also their "technology" is not really effective at all. The bit where they claim to protect the HTML source of a page is absolutely ridiculous and simple to circumvent. Do they actually sell this crap??
Maybe it's just me, but they seem... well, weird. Kinda like those EARN $5,000,000 IN JUST THREE DAYS BY STUFFING ENVELOPES deals. Dunno. Maybe it's just me.
Oh, and the FAQ page tried to install some Gator scumware on load. I bet they did it because they knew the FAQ was going to get hit, because none of the other pages in the site did that.
Re:Does anyone else think... (Score:5, Interesting)
+1 Insightful! Here's the whois lookup for anti-leech.com:
Registrant:
WakeNet AB
Tanneforsv 17
Stockholm, Enskede S-122 47
SE
Domain Name: ANTI-LEECH.COM
Administrative Contact:
Wennberg, Johan johan.wennberg@swipnet.se
Tanneforsv 17
Stockholm, Enskede S-122 47
SE
888 888 888 888
Technical Contact:
Wennberg, Johan johan.wennberg@swipnet.se
Tanneforsv 17
Stockholm, Enskede S-122 47
SE
888 888 888 888
Looks to be a one-man operation. Too bad ol' Johan here isn't a better programmer. He might have some up with some approach that wasn't so a) easy to rip off and b) easy to work around.
Re:Does anyone else think... (Score:3, Insightful)
If that last line is supposed to be his phone number, isn't the obviously bogus number some sort of violation of whatever rules DNS runs under? The last time I bought a domain name, the signup form made a big stink about making sure that all of the contact info was valid. Maybe we can get whoever issued anti-leech.com to take it back. :-)
Thank God for Opera. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thank God for Opera. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank God for Windows. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Does anyone else think... (Score:3, Informative)
Sure.
bash$ whois anti-leech.com
(snip)
Domain Name: ANTI-LEECH.COM
Administrative Contact:
Wennberg, Johan johan.wennberg@swipnet.se
Stockholm, Enskede S-122 47
Fair use, etc etc.
Re:Does anyone else think... (Score:5, Funny)
Where can I learn more about this amazing offer?
Anti-Theft (Score:3, Interesting)
This has already been discussed quite a bit. Is there any compelling legal argument that there is a real contractual obligation, express or implied, to force us to consume the advertising?
Re:Anti-Theft (Score:2)
This company is trying its best to provide technology to get around the ad-blocking technology... a fair game of cat-and-mouse if you ask me. Although, it looks like the mouse is getting away...
Re:Anti-Theft (Score:2)
Perhaps the content owner should reconsider how they do business then. I've never really had a problem with banners or even tasetfully done inline ads, but pop-ups are just downright rude and worse even than telemarketers.
Not legal, but perhaps ethical (Score:5, Interesting)
To use TV as an analogy, muting all the commercials is fine, and is anticipated by the advertisers. If anything the mute button has encouraged them to make ads less bombastic and more entertaining. However, it can get stickier, at least if you are recording and if you are using technology to block the ads. Recording is legal as a form of fair use, but I wonder if routine ad-blocking would raise a problem. I've heard this discussed in the context of these personal video recorders, where they could make ad-skipping very easy, but have made it slightly inconvenient to placate the industry. I don't know if this is out of legal concerns or political pressure. Now, ad blocking software might be a similarly suspect technology. But that seems weak, and as a practical matter the software will not be challenged.
However, I do think an ethical argument could be made that you should watch the ads, perhaps just occasionally as a compromise. We now the ads are what keep the lights on, and that the advertisers are asking for a little of our time in return to make their pitch. If they ask you up front, would you be willing to watch a few ads in exchange for your nighttime dose of Stargate? Slashdot or Salon ask us to pay a subscription to suppress ads; surely it's implied that they'd rather you didn't do it on your own, thus evading both their revenue streams and being at least a bit of a leech. You're not subscribing for the convenience of having them block the ads, you're paying to block the ads, period.
But this is perhaps just a lot of handwringing. Certainly ad-blocking is not a crime, but we have to acknowledge that in many cases, as with TV, we prefer ad-sponsorship over other models, such as paying. I used to use ad-blocking software and got tired of managing it. I now glance at the ads occasionally, or at least don't treat them like the Medusa, where a mere glance might be lethal. And, significantly, I avoid ad-choked sites altogether, denying myself the content while making the point that theirs is not a site to which I will give a "hit." If enough people do this, ad revenue drops and the site has to improve its scheme or perish.
Vote with your feet. Boycott sites you don't like, and respect the sites that you do visit by suffering the content the webmaster has to include not to die. If you don't like it, walk, and if you care enough, send the webmaster a note explaining why.
Sorry my prose rambles -- I'm still mulling this over.
This is ironic. (Score:2)
Interesting. How will they know if you don't load the popups? Seems like a scare tactic to me.
Re:This is ironic. (Score:2)
Re:This is ironic. (Score:2)
Not that we want to see the protected websites, per se. Simply because Johan here thinks that he can one-up the geek community at large. Me thinks that Johan's going to be rendered insignificant rather quickly.
...1...
Re:This is ironic. (Score:2)
Re:This is ironic. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup, you've just invented a method for blocking AOL users. (Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.)
See, if you actually had any experience at all in reviewing web logs, you'd notice that most AOL users come through a proxy system that utilises many different IP addresses to retrieve content. On a typical hit to a single page with 6 graphic images, I'll have seven different IP addresses in my log.
Leave the excercises in programming logic to the professionals, you're just embarrasing yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And it doesn't work very well. (Score:2)
It's interesting. (Score:3)
However, this entire thing is a hack. You can't ever have any assumption be 100% true about clients that may or may not execute code you send them.
Re:This is ironic. (Score:3)
Heh.
Re:This is ironic. (Score:3, Interesting)
Their example [anti-leech.com] just sat there in both. No access denied, no loading images, nothing.
Ironically, in MSIE, with no banner or popup blocking (and I *saw* the test popup it launched), and no reported blocked cookies, I got an access denied message after about 5 seconds.
I'm really impressed by this, uh, "technology". Seriously -- they've come up with something this poor, and actually manage to sell it to people! I wish I could do that, although hopefully with something less lame
Re:This is ironic. (Score:3, Funny)
I'd be even more "impressed" if I were using an afflicted browser, and Anti-Theft was installed on a site I wanted to view, and I had to wait 25 seconds to be told I'd be allowed to continue using the site. I'd probably have already left under the assumption that the server was down or something.
Seems to me we need a new category for software like this. I suggest "Barnumware".
Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:5, Insightful)
The article headline:
"Inventor arrested on drug charges"
In the article, it says he had a pound of marajuana, and two assault rifles. The article then goes on about drugs, drugs, drugs, more drugs.
Excuse me? The pound of dope was more of a threat (well, more newsworthy) than ASSAULT RIFLES?
*shakes head*
Not meant to be a troll, though I'm sure it'll be moderated as such. Just boggles my mind.
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:2)
True, assault weapons are not machine guns; they are semi-automatic, so one trigger pull fires one round. The legal definition is confusing and weird, but this is partly because of the pressure exerted by the gun lobby to eek out exceptions. A pure assault weapon ban might make more sense, but given the variety of weapons made, it's pretty tough to come up with an unassailable definition. Ultimately the line is going to be arbitrary, as with so many regulations.
I don't think "assault weapon" is a propaganda term; certainly the military has a sense of the difference between assault weapons (M-16) and not (9mm sidearm). Assault was used as a synonym for "unusually dangerous," but there is some defensible logic behind that. Pushing for a ban on "unusually dangerous weapons" sound kind of lame, if more accurate.
I disagree that the difference is cosmetic. Most of the elements in the definition focus on functional attributes that make the weapon more portable or more deadly and so on. I mentioned here [slashdot.org] a link to some information concerning the statutory definition. The statute is quite clear which weapons are OK and which are not; and if you are prosecuted if will do you no good to point to a weapon that is similar but legal. You do run into situations like "What is a silencer?" -- one case I saw involved a guy who tried to make a pathetic silencer from a Coke can or something, but I think he may have been convicted on his intent to make the device, not his success.
Gun regulation dates back 100 years, and there is considerable caselaw. The assault weapon ban just added a little more scope to it (no pun intended).
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:3, Insightful)
SNIP
True, assault weapons are not machine guns; they are semi-automatic, so one trigger pull fires one round.
SNIP
I don't think "assault weapon" is a propaganda term; certainly the military has a sense of the difference between assault weapons (M-16)
See. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Confusion between what is an "assault weapon" and flat out fully automatic machine guns which have been heavily regulated for years. The M-16 is not an "assault weapon", neither under the legal definition nor under your own. So did you call the M-16 an assault weapon because you're one of the ignorant masses whose fallen for all the propaganda they've heard? Apparently. You don't belive the term is a propaganda term, and more importantly on some level you've accepted that particular lie as truth. Despite your earlier statements in the same post which give a contrary opinion! Quite remarkable.
I disagree that the difference is cosmetic. Most of the elements in the definition focus on functional attributes that make the weapon more portable or more deadly and so on. I mentioned here [slashdot.org] a link to some information concerning the statutory definition.
If you want to present the impression of impartially "informing" the readers, don't reference the Brady Foundation. They are at least as biased as the NRA. From the more impartial University of Michigan here are the things that make a rifle an "assault weapon":
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
(i) has some impact on how concealable a weapon is, but in actual use the stock is unfolded and performs identically to a normal stock.
(ii) is really what makes a weapon look like a military weapon to the general public. I'm suprised that they didn't just ban all rifles with this style of grip. Note that in my opinion, this falls under cosmetic. I can shoot either type of rifle from either the hip or the shoulder. A pistol-style grip is a little easier from the hip perhaps, but I think this is largely cosmetic.
(iii) This is totally cosmetic. Are drug dealers and gang members really running around with bayonets?
(iv) Same thing. Is anybody that worried about flash suppressors? It's not like they actually supress the muzzle flash anyway.
(v) Totally ludicrous. Are any crimes commited with grenades? Besides I would be very suprised if grenades and grenade launchers were not already regulated under firearms laws covering destructive devices
The statute is quite clear which weapons are OK and which are not; and if you are prosecuted if will do you no good to point to a weapon that is similar but legal.
The statute is "clear" because it bans a number of weapons by name. The statute is quite unclear because you can buy post-ban weapons that are functionally identical to banned guns with minor cosmetic changes and new names. For example, the Colt AR-15 and Colt "Match Target HBAR". To 95% of the population, they look identical. And they are pretty much right. Colt took off the flash supressor and bayonet mount, slapped on a new name, and hey, legal weapon.
The bill is also quite unclear because there are several pairs of rifles where both are semi-automatic, both are magazine fed, and both shoot the same round. A specific example is the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14. But one is banned by name, and the other is exempted by name! What's the sense in that?
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:2)
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:2)
Assault rifles are not practical criminal weapons. They are expensive (an AR-15 costs $1,000 to $1,500). They are not easy to conceal. They are unweidly to operate in confined indoor spaces. These features make them very undesireable to most criminals. Hence, you don't hear about people robbing a convenience store with an AR-15 very often.
Make no mistake about it, if someone has real criminal intent, a gun law will do nothing to prevent them from carrying out their actions. You can get any gun you want (legal or illegal) into this country, or any other, if you have a strong enough desire to. No law will prevent that. If you don't believe me, then why does Britain have problems with gun violence?
The reason behind the second amendment is that the government is truly putting its trust in the people, and hence, they have the right to be armed if they so desire. It's not about your right to hunt ducks, or even your right to defend your home against criminals. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some crazed revolutionary idiot--I love this country, flaws and all--but this really is the reason behind the second amendment.
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:2)
OK, then, should we trust people with .50 calibre machine guns? RPGs? Stinger missiles? F-22's? Tactical nukes? Unless you're going to argue that private citizens should be allowed to posess any weaponry they choose, you have to draw the line somewhere. The difference between US gun laws and the rest of the world's is merely that the line is drawn differently.
And, taking your argument from the other end, if the government trusts its people so much, why aren't people allowed to smoke dope? With dope, the risk of a third party being harmed is surely much smaller than that with a rifle.
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:3, Interesting)
And that, my friend, is exactly the point of the Second Amendment.
DISCLAIMER: I do not own a gun.
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:2)
The drugs are illegal (without a tax stamp, which the government won't sell you, if I recall correctly). The guns are, generally, legal.
Owning the guns, since ( or maybe I should say if) they are suited for military use (see this [go.com] abc news article for a layman's overview which mentions the US vs Miller case), is specifically protected by the US constitution.
Without the drugs (assuming that the guy wasn't a felon), there would be nothing newsworthy about the guns. With the drugs, they're good for some extra years in jail, but still nothing newsworthy.
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:2)
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it gives more punch when the assault rifles are listed second. Most people don't think pot is that bad, so it needs to be reinforced with something evil.
Putting the more-important-thing first often comes out with the opposite effect: "They seized assault rifles and a pound of marijuana." See how flat that sounds?
People are also more likely to remember the last thing in a list, so it has the most power.
On that note: someone I knew, a kind gentle man, was arrested for growing pot (several plants, but not large-scale). This guy wouldn't, and didn't, ever threaten anyone with guns. But he had some in the house.
The guns were reported in the paper. I was surprised at just how evil and dangerous it made him sound, and realized that I had passed similar judgement against people I didn't know just for reading in they paper that their guns were seized.
Different than the story in question, I know, but just beware when you see things like that printed. You probably know people who own assault rifles.
Kinda says something about Slashdotters (Score:4, Insightful)
It appears most people who replied read this:
Excuse me? The pound of dope was more of a threat (well, more newsworthy) than ASSAULT RIFLES?
and promptly went into Gun Defense mode.
A few people pointed out the legality of guns vs. the illegality of weed. That's not what he asked. He asked which was more of a threat.
A few other people pointed out the media's and authority's tendency to exaggerate the nature of weapons found during raids. "Assault rifles" could be, well, anything. However, a person firing a bullet from a rifle is more likely to threaten a person's life than a person lighting up a fatty, which is what RollingThunder was trying to get at.
If there weren't an insane War on (Some) Drugs that turns people who grow plants and brew chemicals to trade with others for personal use into criminals, this raid would never have happened.
I'm disappointed. A lot of people completely failed to answer his (possibly rhetorical) question regarding which is a greater threat to human life, instead falling back on the law or media/police exaggerations to dodge the issue at the root of this.
You can support a person's right to own weaponry and still acknowledge that the availability of weapons poses a greater threat to peace and life than the availability of a plant.
Pedantic spelling and word meaning reply. (Score:2)
No clue. But I know what "assault rifle" means. Is that what you meant?
The quote is "for all intents and purposes", not "intensive purposes". I could maybe see how a purpose could be "of, relating to, or characterized by intensity", but I really don't think that's what you meant.
Goodbye karma!
Re:Pedantic spelling and word meaning reply. (Score:2)
His spelling makes it sounds a bit like "insult weapons."
Anyone interested in the statutory definition of "assault weapon," as set forth by the 1994 gun control law, can check here [bradycampaign.org]. Note that factors such as clip size are paramount -- IMHO, as this may draw ire, if you can't finish off your mugger with 10 rounds you need to spend more time at the firing range. (pardon my citing a partisan source; I try to avoid that but don't feel like going to the trouble of finding the statute itself. Anyone seriously interested should do so.)
Some things like silencers I believe are unlicensable, and are subject to a stiff prison term. Machine guns are legal but strictly limited to the 100,000 licenses extant.
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:2)
I don't suppose the fact they aren't used in crimes could have anything to do with the fact that the government won't let you own one. Could it, now?
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:2)
Hmm, I should not have used the word "you" there, since I just realized this could be read as insinuating that you personally owning such a gun would mean it would be used in a crime.
Re:Kinda says something about the US attitude... (Score:2)
I would be much happier if PEOPLE with GUNS killed TROLLS.
This is too funny... (Score:5, Funny)
That's all I'm going to say... this is too funny.
Re:This is too funny... (Score:2)
"Today" (Score:2, Interesting)
Legally it is of course not theft to block pop ups (today)
TODAY?! This implies that at some point, they wish to have pop-up blocking declared ILLEGAL. This really scares me.
boo fuckin' hoo (Score:2, Interesting)
Legally it is of course not theft to block pop ups [but] it's like stealing something from us.
The only way to cover for that income is using banner ads and pop ups
Want money? GET A REAL JOB! What is so special about "pop-ups"? You can't find another way to fund yourself? Can't figure out a type of advertisting that doesn't piss people off? Read some books on capitalism, then adapt or die.
Seriously, these guys are nuts and will be out of business in a year. Meanwhile, all the small web sites will either die off or find a better way to support themselves.
Actually, now that I think about it.. I guess I don't mind these guys. They'll let me AVOID pop-ups and the sites that use them! Cool! Hell, I wish Mozilla would put up a dialog that says "oops, this site uses pop-ups, stay the fuck away". Then everybody wins!
Google is profitable without that much advertising. However, Google is a multinational huge company with an enourmous sale force and budget.
Gee, I wonder WHY Google is so successful? I wonder WHY Google doesn't have an "apologies" page like you do, trying to justify its existence. Maybe because they have a legitimate business model, not just a bunch of whining and crappy javascript?
Thank you,
Anonymous Coward who sounds pissed but really isn't
oh the irony... ;-) (Score:2)
Wait! This gives me a great idea for a new advertising scheme! I think I'll call them "put up" ads!!! I'll make millions!! :D
Heh...just kidding. Actually, I am quite happy w/ Mozilla just blocking the pop-ups. I would probably be kind of annoyed if everytime I came to a site which uses pop-ups (which I don't see anyway because they are blocked) a dialoge popped up at me asking me if I want to block that site. The cookie one is annoying enough as it is for me. But I put up with that one because I want to know what sites are trying to put on my computer.
Just MHO...cheers. :)
Pot calling kettle black (Score:2)
But, I did venture over to that Anti-Leech site. After reading a while, laughing out loud a bit, and repeating this for quite some time while browsing their inane site, I started to see pop-ups.
And no, not just any pop-ups, but pop-up ads that feature illegal devices like x10 cameras, cable descramblers, et al.
How f*cking ironic is that?!
Kazaa Lite and Anti-leech (Score:2)
Translation (Score:5, Informative)
La Corte Suprema de Justicia ordenó suspender los efectos de la orden del Ente Regulador de los Servicios Públicos (ERSP) que bloqueó los puertos de acceso de voz sobre Protocolo de Internet al admitir una acción de amparo de garantías constitucionales.
The supreme court ordered the directive to block ports to be suspended based on a [claim] of constitutional guarantees.
El amparo fue presentado por la firma Infante, Garrido & Garrido a nombre de la compañía Net2net Corp., en contra la resolución de la junta directiva del Ente No. JD-3576, del 25 de octubre del 2002.
This law firm submitted the request to suspend the blockage on Oct. 25.
Mediante una nota firmada por el magistrado sustanciador, Winston Spadafora, la Corte solicitó al Ente el envío de un informe acerca de los hechos sobre el caso y se ordenó la suspensión inmediata de los efectos de la mencionada resolución.
Essentially what I assume is the federal prosecutor requested the company that would have been doing the blocking an explanation about the action, which was then given to the Supreme Court, who in turn stopped the order.
Para el presidente del Ente Regulador, Alex Anel Arroyo, las llamadas a larga distancia internacional a través de internet son ilegales.
The dude Alex Anel Arroyo thinks international long distance calls over the internet are illegal, yadda. I assume he's the one that initiated all this. Send him some email =)
La orden del Ente fue dirigida a unas 50 empresas concesionarias del servicio 211 o servicio de internet para uso público, para que bloqueen 24 puertos de acceso User Datagram Protocol (UDP), que eran utilizados para transmisión de voz, incluso por algunas empresas que daban el servicio al público.
The blocking order was originally sent to about 50 internet providers to block 24 UDP ports used for voice transmission.
Esas empresas proveedoras de servicio de internet han presentado varias solicitudes de reconsideración ante el ERSP.
The companies have in fact requested the order be examinated further.
Entre los proveedores de internet que hicieron la petición de reconsideración se encuentran Intered, Ayayai.com, BellSouth Internet, Cable & Wireless Internet, Cable Onda, Compu Service Communications, GBNet A CCI Network, Inter.net, PanNet, Net2Net y Senacyt.
List of ISPs that requested the order be reconsidered.
La Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (Senacyt) criticó la resolución a través de su director, Gonzalo Córdoba, quien afirmó que el bloqueo de los puertos de acceso de voz "constituye una forma inusitada de censura".
The government technology agency criticized the attempt to block the ports, etc.
A la posición de los proveedores de internet se suma la de muchos usuarios que se verán afectados con el bloqueo de los puertos de acceso, conocidos como User Datagram Protocols.
Not to mention individual users who would find themselves screwed (my emphasis) by the UDP blockage. Duh.
Doubleclick? More like doublespeak. (Score:5, Funny)
OK, so I load up the "anti-leech" FAQ, and what do I get? A doubleclick add for....: anti-popup software [omegacs.net]
ROFL!
Re:Doubleclick? More like doublespeak. (Score:2)
I'm a really bad person (Score:4, Interesting)
Not only do I use a browser that blocks pop-ups, I also have added a variety of advertiser URLs to my "hosts" file. While the pop-ups are annoying no matter what, I generally will let banner ads, etc. download in peace... as long as the ad gets successfully served. The only advertisers in my host file are those who have consistently managed to effectively block the content that I was interested in by not being able to serve the ads they contracted to serve for those sites. If you're going to hit me with an ad, at least do it correctly.
rant mode off
Back to "anti-leach"... I guess I'm also supposed to read all the ads in free newspapers and not take a biology breaks or grab a beer when there's a commercial on TV and its a high crime if I hit the mute button. Maybe that's why I'd rather just read a book.
To Anti-Leech: (Score:2)
Just love your FAQ web page. I especially liked the way your Java code pegged my CPU at 100% and I had to kill -9 my browser. And you wonder why people are blocking your damned pop-up ads? If keeping my software from crashing by blocking these annoyances makes me a ``thief'' then so be it. I guess I already knew that since I don't watch all the ads on television and I don't read all the ads in the daily newspaper or magazines.
The war of words... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm frankly amazed at the degree to which people go to redefine words to try to change the tenor and direction of debate. A good example is the anti-leech trying to redefine your desire to not read their advertising as theft. To use the word theft to describe such actions is to belittle the meaning of the word theft, making it useless to describe actual property crimes.
Anti-leech would have you believe that you are under some obligation to make their particular business model (which is apparently to gain money by annoying people with popups) or else you are stealing from them. They admit that in a legal sense, it is of course incorrect to call it theft, but in a moral sense such a label is justified.
They are, well, full of it.
It isn't the responsibility of consumers to make a particular broken business model profitable: that is the responsibility of business owners. If you can't figure out a way to make money on the Internet, then you can't, but it seems pretty silly to bitch at your target audience for that problem. When your viewers decide to employ pop-up blocking or ad-filtering software, they are sending you as their content provider a message: this stuff is not of value to me, I don't want to waste even a single brain cell dealing with it. It is true that eventually your advertisers will likely notice that the response rate from web based advertisements are ridiculously low and will stop spending money on click-throughs and the like, and that will (at least according to anti-leech) spell an end to many websites.
Which would of course be a hideous tragedy, because who doesn't want to read through more advertising.
Businesses should learn a new lesson: intrusive pop up advertising doesn't work. Spam doesn't work. Stop paying for it. Be creative, and try to make information about your product visible to those who actually want it, don't cast it scattergun style in front of millions of people for whom it just represents an annoyance. Browsers such as Mozilla now have pop-up blocking because users want it, and that means that the users don't want to read your add for X-10 cameras or you've won a free prize while trying to access their bank accounts. Listen to your customers, and develop a business based upon respecting them, not on blanketing them with crap everytime they log in.
Yes. Happy Xgiving if applicable... (Score:2)
Oh, the irony @ cdcovers.cc (Score:4, Funny)
Expect My Bill (Score:5, Insightful)
"A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"
Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.
The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.
The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page [anti-leech.com] there is a graphic [anti-leech.com] which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."
This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?
Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.
And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?
Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...
Re:Expect My Bill (Score:2)
You're right, they shouldn't be calling people who don't like popups 'thieves'. That said, the word has been drastically diluted in its meaning thanks to Valenti, Rosen et al. For site authors whose first language probably isn't English (their sytax is funny, and some of their registration info leads me to believe they're Swedish) perhaps we can cut them a bit of slack.
To be fair, the content that they're trying to protect is their own. If they want to say that I have to do backflips to see it, that's their prerogative. I don't have to agree to their terms, and I don't have to see their content.
Your complaint sounds something like, "Yankee Stadium was built right out in public view. Anybody can just walk right up to it. It's unfair that as a condition of entry, the owners can charge money for access. Members of the public should be able to walk right in and wander about whenever they feel like it. I mean, it should be okay as long as they don't take somebody else's seat, right?" Most sites don't charge for their content, but they're not compelled to give it away. If these web sites want to try to enforce their particular revenue model, I wish them the best of luck. They're not hurting anybody but themselves, I suspect.
Re:Expect My Bill (Score:2)
"No, it's like letting people have a private viewing of the painting if they sit through a 5 minute sales pitch first. They don't have to see the painting, but if they try to slip in through the back door, they are stealing from the artist."
You're muddying the issue. In your example there is an agreement with sales organization. I have no agreement with site X and yet I'm branded a thief.
You cannot compare a contract situation to a situation in which no contract exists. Apples and oranges, and extremely obviously so.
Re:Expect My Bill (Score:2)
Next thing you'll see it websites that make you contractly agree to view all ads before allowing you to view content. There is such a thing as an ethical implied committment.
-BrentRe:Expect My Bill (Score:3, Insightful)
Anti-leech should look at the ads they serve (Score:2)
Well, I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too... the campaign they are trying to start is funded by the ads they are serving up.
Ya know what -- I don't give a damn. I'll still leave the unsolicited pop-up blocker enabled in Mozilla, and if some dipsh!t site wants to use the anti-leech stuff, I'll fire up IE in a sacrificial process that I can kill if things get out of hand.
A fine piece of advice (Score:2)
Yes, this should have made them cautious, but the more important clue was his Material excess. I'm not one to begrudge a man a nice car, but by the same token, I won't invest in a company who has at it's head a man who spends to excess. *Cough*Oracle*ahem*. If Priest is spending money like water, then the money isn't going towards the product, real or not, it's going towards his personal taste, and that nets the investor nothing. That this flim flam netted so much dough without any documentation is a cautionary tale for even the private investor with a small portfolio.
Re:A fine piece of advice (Score:2)
I think you've confused the company's money and the employee's money. You probably wouldn't care if employee #2708 spent all his money on cladding his house in the burbs with faux bricks, so why should you care if employee #1 wastes his on fast cars and the like ?
In this guys's case, you might have a point, since he's probably the only employee and he really IS the company, but why begrudge Larry or Paul Allen or any other successful business the fruits of their labour/ingenuity/luck or whatever ? Presumably you would only invest in companies where the boss lives in a trailer parked out back of the office ?
I've never laughed my ass so hard. (Score:2)
I'm using Proxomitron. I've been using it for a lonnnnng time.
Proxomitron [cjb.net] blocked their popups, the ads on their site, and I stuffed a new script in, in order to get back my context menu. SAD Stuff.
I hope this is the trend for "anti-block" crap. I can get around that without even breaking a sweat.
Now, if only I could run proxomitron on Linux.
I can't beleive that they claim to stop stuff like Proxomitron. It's just about the perfect tool
HNCPBS
Bill Anti-leech, They're All For It! (Score:5, Funny)
I realize, of course, that the owner of anti-leech.com did not request the content in question, but this fact seems largely irrelevant to Mr. Wennberg. After all, much like the "thieves" who "steal" from his clients, he did not actually ask that I compose a reply, but I did and it did cost me bandwidth to post, time to create, etc., and as such I expect Mr. Wennberg to pay for the resources that have been expended.
It is in this vein that I have billed Mr. Wennberg for my rebuttal (content) on a net-30 basis and fully intend to collect. I really hope that Mr. Wennberg is consistent with his application of fairness. After all, I did spend a lot of time putting together my response and if he does not pay my bill, it might very well cause me to go out of business altogether.
---------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:42:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com>
To: johan.wennberg@swipnet.se
Bcc: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com>
Subject: Crashspace: Invoice #0001
Anti-leech.com,
Thank you for your recent content purchase! Here is your order confirmation.
Invoice: 0001
Content:
----[%begin]----
From the FAQ [anti-leech.com]:
"A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"
Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.
The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.
The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page [anti-leech.com] there is a graphic [anti-leech.com] which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."
This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?
Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.
And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?
Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...
My
Limekiller
----[%end ]----
Total Charge: $90.00 USD
We bill on a net-30 basis. Past due accounts are charged an additional 18% annual APR fee, accrued every 30 days (1.5%).
Again, thank you for using Crashspace content!
Regards,
Jason
--
----
"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse." - Charles V
Re:Bill Anti-leech, They're All For It! (Score:3, Funny)
Hm, according to this portion:
Limekiller
----[%end ]----
Total Charge: $90.00 USD
The actual value of your opinion is $0.02, while your fee is $90.00. Pretty nice mark-up!
Re:Bill Anti-leech, They're All For It! (Score:5, Funny)
"The actual value of your opinion is $0.02, while your fee is $90.00. Pretty nice mark-up!"
I should clarify. The two pennies if for parts. The other $89.98 is labor. =)
Oh the delicious irony... (Score:4, Funny)
the ridiculous FAQ (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a response I was working on. I would send it, but I have no confidence they would actually read it.
Thank you for your response. I read your FAQ, and have the following questions and comments.
While I won't dispute that web sites take time to develop, many thousands of web sites operate non-commercially, and I've run several at no cost. The web is a place to share information. You characterize user preferences as theft, and even implicitly advocate turning that characterization into law:
In essence, therefore, you are attempting to restrict an environment of free exchange of information to support a commercial venture, based upon the fallacious argument that the environment depends on the success of that venture. I find that reprehensible.
Actually, according to this: http://www.google.com/press/investors.html [google.com], Google is privately funded, owned by a small consortium of U.S. IT business leaders. And despite having actually used Google's advertising services, I have not been contacted by any member of their vast sales force. I have received not even a single piece of spam. I point this out because Google's business success has come from their attitude toward their intended customers. People want unbiased, accurate, ad-free search results. Google is successful because they have found a way to give people what they want and a way to make money on it, rather than trying to force an outdated business philosophy to the Internet, and screaming epithets such as "thief!" when it doesn't work.
Battle scene creation (Score:2)
Four companies that I know of have tools for this now. It's a tiny, tiny niche market. There's going to be a shakeout real soon.
One good point in the FAQ (Score:2)
If only they'd do the same for me...
A better human translation of VoIP article (by me) (Score:3, Informative)
Court Suspends Internet Blockage Ruling
Mario A. Muñoz
andresm@prensa.com
The Supreme Court of Justice ordered to suspend the effects of the Public Services Regulating Body (ESRP) order that blocked the ports for voice over IP, due to a finding that it was constitutionally protected.
The motion was presented by the firm Infante, Garrido & Garrdio for the company Net2net Corp, in opposition to the Oct. 25th, 2002 resolution JD-3576 by the board of directors of the Regulating Body.
In a letter from the Chief Magistrate, Winston Spadafora, the Court asked for a report on the facts of the case and ordered the immediate suspension of the effects of the aforementioned resolution.
The President of the Regulating Body, Alex Anel Arroyo, thinks international calls made through the Internet are illegal.
The ESRP order was given to 50 Internet Service Providers, ordering them to block 24 UDP access ports that were used for voice transmission, including some companies that offered that service to the public.
Those ISPs have presented several requests to the ERSP for reconsideration (of the order).
Among the ISPs that issued the request are Intered, Ayayai.com, BellSouth Internet, Cable & Wireless Internet, Cable Onda, Compu Service Communications, GBNet a CCI Network, Inter.net, PanNet, Net2Net, and Senacyt.
The national Department of Science, Technology, and Innovation (Senacyt) criticized the resolution through its director, Gonzalo Cordova, who affirmed that blocking the voice access ports "constitutes a different form of censorship".
The ISPs position is added to that of the many users would be affected by blocking the access ports known as UDP (User Datagram Protocols)
All rights are reserved by Prensa corporation. internet@prensa.com
(hopefully those don't include translation rights)
Please don't feel offended - we understand you (Score:2)
Blocking Pop Ups (Score:2)
Maybe someone ought to send that "Webmaster" of that site a SPELL CHECKING Ad so they might be able to purchase one and put it to USE.
Here's your darwin award (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody likes banners, popups, or spam all they do is annoy users and steal OUR bandwidth, so when your buisness model based on popups, banners or spam fails, analagously speaking you die.
Google's advertisments work because they're TARGETED. You search for something and they slip in a couple of text based ads related to WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
Here's a weird analogy: In Vietnam the U.S. dropped more blanketing bombs on North Vietnam than in all of WWII and it accomplished almost nothing. It was a stupid strategy because just like with mass spamming/popups the liklihood of any given bomb accomplishing something was nil just like the odds of any single ad generating a profit are nil, you're just wasting "bombs" that never make an impact just like your untargeted ads face a disinterested audience.
Google gets to survive because their method works, you don't because yours doesn't.
No hurry up and croak, we're tired of your bs.
Anti-leech scumbags.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but they are scumbags through and through. anyone supporting the invasive popups and allowing gator anywhere near their servers are worse than telemarketers that scam old people.
Sorry, but their actions and how their site acts says contrary to someone interested in doing legitimage business and I will continue to warn people away from their company and anyone that uses their services.
Re:voip (Score:2)
I don't think VoIP is anywhere near becoming mainstream for consumers but I can see it becoming very large in large corporations that constantly do long distance between offices or just want to save on network/phone infrastructure in the building.
Re:voip (Score:2)
I worked at an ISP that used PacWest for many dialup lines, as well as the office phone lines (tech support included) and PacWest had some sort of "hardware failure" that left all of the phone lines down for well over 10 hours.
Re:voip (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:voip (Score:4, Informative)
Just about the worst telephone call you can make-- in my experience-- is the US to Sydney, Oz. The call must be routed over a satellite link or something, because the lag is on the order of half a second. When you're talking to someone in Australia, you get used to saying, "How are you today?" and then waiting while the perceptible lag passes to hear the reply, "Fuck off, you piker! It's three in the bloody mornin'!"
Every VOIP call is like that, only the lag varies from a merely noticeable fraction of a second to between one and two seconds from moment to moment, due to varying net traffic conditions.
VOIP, in other words, is more annoying and less effective than your average instant messaging system.
Re:Sue PanIP? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.youmaybenext.com/help.html [youmaybenext.com]
If everyone pitched in a buck I bet we could blow PanIP out of the water. I know that I don't want any of my clients getting sued and all of them fit in the category that is being preyed upon by these parasites. Shoot, I just talked myself in to contributing a buck for every website I manage. I would suggest that if you build sites for others that you do the same.
Re:Sue PanIP? (Score:3, Informative)
<nitpick style="pedantic" value="trivial">
The expression a la is French for "in the manner or style of." I think the idiom you meant to use was via, which means "by the way of." I think you meant, "they are taking contributions for the effort via PayPal." On the other hand, you could have said, "they are taking contributions for the effort a la the EFF," which would have meant, "they are taking contributions in the same way that the EFF does." Whichever.
</nitpick>
Re:Sue PanIP? (Score:3, Informative)
It's slightly different for the 'youmaybenext.com' application. That's clearly a commentary site describing the lawsuits and what they see as the fallout from them. No real malice or illegality there (just lots of indignation and anger). Many states have anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation [casp.net]) laws. Running against those can get you bitch-SLAPPed.
Move to a State with anti-SLAPP laws (Score:2)
Re:Move to a State with anti-SLAPP laws (Score:2)
Easier if they beat them first (Score:5, Insightful)
The other way to play it is to tell them "drop the suit or we'll squash you into the ground for making a frivolous attack on us" and hope that works, but unfortunately the patent system is biased towards people who can talk the patent office into giving them patents, so this is difficult.
Re:Easier if they beat them first (Score:3, Informative)
Thalia
Re:TTT burn all movs! (Score:2)
Playing AOL_ttt_01.mov
Detected QuickTime/MOV file format!
Compressed header uses zlib algo!
See the MPlayer homepage [mplayerhq.hu] for details on watching Sorenson videos.