I'll enjoy watching you continue to shit yourself over this, but this will be my last reply to you (though I'm thinking of making this my sig):

We hereby petition the government of the United States of America to review our proposal for putting Alexander Peter Kowalski (i.e. APK) to death by any means available. This individual is a menace to society and has proven himself to be a drain on the productivity for the millions of IT workers worldwide that spend so much time uncontrollably laughing at APK and his antics. We estimate that this phenomena is costing businesses in the US at least 100 million dollars on an annual basis. Given that APK only has APKTools to justify existence we have no problem recommending him for immediate execution. If at all possible, we would like the execution to be slow and painful.

It's clear your solution can't block ads and annoyances nearly as well as uBlock. I also have no idea why anyone would run an executable made by a bigoted spammer. Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it.

Guess I'm not the first one to want this guy dead.

From 2006:
"We hereby petition the government of the United States of America to review our proposal for putting Alexander Peter Kowalski (i.e. APK) to death by any means available. This individual is a menace to society and has proven himself to be a drain on the productivity for the millions of IT workers worldwide that spend so much time uncontrollably laughing at APK and his antics. We estimate that this phenomena is costing businesses in the US at least 100 million dollars on an annual basis. Given that APK only has APKTools to justify existence we have no problem recommending him for immediate execution. If at all possible, we would like the execution to be slow and painful."

One thing is true, this guy claims to have history going back decades. For any of you who thought he was some idiot kid, it seems he's actually a sad old man (well, physically anyway, mentally he obviously never made it past 13). It does explain the homophobic comments though.

Can you imagine, if what he's saying is true, he spends his retirement spamming Slashdot. I'd be on a beach somewhere drinking mai-tais.

AIDS riddled brain, really? Well, whatever else you are at least we know you're a bigot that sees being gay (which I am) as equivalent to having AIDS. Good to know, Alexander Peter Kowalski.

I haven't run from anything as you well know. You do seem to be running from some things:
- Your app uses 37MB of RAM
- A 2 million+ line hosts file uses much more RAM than that, but of course that memory isn't attributed to your app. At 100 bytes per line that would be 200MB. How big is that hosts file anyway? Is it loaded by each application separately or is the OS at least efficient enough to use shared memory?

I'll be sure to let Hilton Hotels know what kind of person they're hiring.

Hey Alexander Peter Kowalski, two questions for you:
- Why don't you sign your posts with your full name, don't you want future employers to find all your wonderful ideas when they google your name?

- Why does your page show that your application uses 37MB of RAM (not 6), which is actually more than uBlock? What was that about doing more with less?

I've got to say, it's great for once to see a spammer work himself into a puddle. When you (for instance) mark an e-mail as spam you just don't get this kind of satisfaction.

The toolbars on Wikia and auto-playing videos on Bloomberg are served from the same host as the main content. Hosts blocking won't work.

I tried blocking javascript, but I don't feel like spending 5 minutes on every site figuring out which scripts to let through. Besides, uBlock and ghostery stop the worst ones.

As for your "doing less with more" claim: my question is, which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock, your system blocks fewer ads and I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea does.

As for your other comment that you seem to think I "ran" from (I can barely parse your rants): Why the fuck would a standalone e-mail program need an ad blocker? Do you actually have your e-mail set to allow remote content?

Here's a question, if there's a part of a page I don't like (sidebar, toolbar, "join our mailing list" nag), can your hosts solution let me right click on it and block it forever? No?

Again, why should I trust an adblocker made by a spamvertiser?

Those plants can all be grown elsewhere. In case it wasn't clear, I live in California. I'd far rather have water to drink than see it used to grow crops that get shipped to other states.

I can barely read your bizarre rants, but I never post AC. I stand by every post. I also don't mod, I disabled moderation for my account years ago to keep the interface clean.

There's no need to move water save for a few exceptional cases in rural areas where local farming has completely depleted the water table. The answer is much simpler: stop farming. It's 2% of CA's economy or around $40 billion. If we cut out the thirstiest plants first we can save tons of water without sacrificing much of the economic benefits. Water use by people is fraction of Ag water use.

Any water we brought in would effectively be for farm irrigation, I doubt the farmers are willing to pay the cost for such a project.

So I'm supposed to waste CPU cycles and memory on auto-playing videos and screen real estate on pointless toolbars because you think your solution is "better"?

Besides, I'll bet your list includes some sites that I need for work. Oh, your list can't be turned off on a per-site basis without whitelisting that domain everywhere? Maybe that's because it sucks.

At least other ad blockers aren't made by spammers. If you're in the business of making annoying ads why do you make an ad blocker?

I'm exactly none of the people you listed as giving you shit, but I still want you gone. Your solution sucks and your spam is as annoying as the ads I block with uBlock, especially the native ones that your solution can't block.

We all hope you die painfully soon. But here's a small subset of the reasons you suck:

1) Will it run on my iPad (and no, I'm not jailbreaking)?
2) Can I use it to block annoying "toolbars" that sites cover 20% of their content with (e.g. Wikia)?
3) Can it be used to defeat modal boxes that try to prevent you from reading articles on various sites?
4) How about the auto-playing video on Bloomberg (and others)?

Answer: NOPE

Besides, uBlock is using 33MB of RAM right now, which is considerably less than GMail. I can even use it to block the stupid "videos" feature on the Slashdot home page.

Or this could just be the 2015 version of the pop-up blocker. The same arguments were made against pop-up blockers that are now made against ad blockers. Then Firefox and its pop-up blocker went mainstream and the feature was adopted by the rest of the browsers.

Mozilla (back then) only had an interest in having a good user experience, and blocking pop-ups turned out to be an easy way to improve user experience. Likewise, Apple might just be looking to improve user experience. Since they have no financial interest in online advertising, they're free to act in the interest of the user.

I primarily use Spotify on the iPad, where it says "Private Session lasts until you've been inactive for 6 hours". With my usage habits, that would mean I'd probably have to reset it twice a day. I'd rather not waste 30 seconds every time I open Spotify to check if it's forgotten yet.

Oh, and it's not connected to Facebook, and my playlists are private, but I'm not actually sure what's visible to other Spotify users. I'd just prefer that "none" was an option. I forgot to mention another annoyance with Spotify, occasionally an update will re-enable the "friends" bar. I'm so sick of getting nagged to let social media invade my screen. GMail's Google Plus, Netflix's Facebook integration, Digg Deeper, and Spotify. All of them are (or were) set up to nag you until you enable their social functionality.

For a while Spotify would randomly pop up a message to enable some Facebook trash on the iOS app, I think they were actually hoping you'd hit it by accident. Even after multiple refusals it would keep coming back.

There is at least on file browsing problem. Have you noticed that newly created files somehow have "no date" as a created/last mod time? This means if you sort by descending date (newest on top) new files actually sort to the bottom. Seems to take a while to stamp a date, maybe a weird cache issue?