Unfortunately, a few weeks ago my sister introduced me to "fail blog".

It has taken me literally half of today to track down the example photo 
she showed me. Both of us spent about 8 minutes laughing about it.

http://failblog.org/2011/06/17/epic-fail-photos-whale-of-a-fail/

I mean, seriously, WTF? XD



I found various other things while searching for this. For example, if 
this is anything to go by, typing almost any random phrase into Google 
causes it to auto-complete with some seriously weird-ass query 
suggestions! o_O Either that or somebody spends a lot of time faking 
these things...



Also:

http://failblog.org/2011/06/22/epic-fail-photos-after-12-nothing-says-party-like-one-of-these/

They appear to have mis-spelt "WIN". :-D



While many of these are quite funny, a large number of them leave me 
wondering what kind of escaped lunatic would have done something so 
utterly retarded. For example:

http://failblog.org/2011/06/24/epic-fail-photos-stall-height-fail/

http://failblog.org/2011/06/22/epic-fail-photos-probably-bad-news-how-to-piss-off-an-englishman-101l/

http://failblog.org/2011/06/20/epic-fail-photos-fire-safety-fail-2/

Seriously, how did you NOT NOTICE how horribly wrong you just did that?

And then there's a few such as these:

http://failblog.org/2011/06/23/epic-fail-photos-school-pride-fail/

http://failblog.org/2011/06/19/epic-fail-photos-holiday-wtf-athers-day-gift-ad/

Wow. Just... wow.

(Also several signs where "HERE" has become "HER" to comic effect. E.g., 
"Please enter here." "It's always friday in here." etc.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Unfortunately, a few weeks ago my sister introduced me to "fail blog".

  I'm puzzled. Long time ago I posted a list of such websites I follow
regularly, and failblog.org was the first one of them. I could swear that
you responded to my post then. (Of course my memory might fail me.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, a few weeks ago my sister introduced me to "fail blog".
>
>   I'm puzzled. Long time ago I posted a list of such websites I follow
> regularly, and failblog.org was the first one of them. I could swear that
> you responded to my post then. (Of course my memory might fail me.)

I liked faildogs. :)

Post a reply to this message

On 7/7/2011 12:20, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Unfortunately, a few weeks ago my sister introduced me to "fail blog".

A great deal of what's on fail blog isn't fail at all. But they have to keep 
up now, so ...

> It has taken me literally half of today to track down the example photo she
> showed me. Both of us spent about 8 minutes laughing about it.
>
> http://failblog.org/2011/06/17/epic-fail-photos-whale-of-a-fail/
>
> I mean, seriously, WTF? XD

They're teaching a class showing how belugha whales don't have sharp teeth 
and don't eat meat or something.  Clearly the trainer is entertaining the 
guests, which is exactly what's supposed to happen.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 07/07/2011 08:52 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Unfortunately, a few weeks ago my sister introduced me to "fail blog".
>
>    I'm puzzled. Long time ago I posted a list of such websites I follow
> regularly, and failblog.org was the first one of them. I could swear that
> you responded to my post then. (Of course my memory might fail me.)

Or perhaps it is *my* memory that fails, of course. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:03:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> A great deal of what's on fail blog isn't fail at all. But they have to
> keep up now, so ...

More and more of it seems to be repeats lately, too.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> A great deal of what's on fail blog isn't fail at all. But they have to
>> keep up now, so ...
>
> More and more of it seems to be repeats lately, too.

I eventually stopped following one of the lolcat sites due to the 
extreme level of advertising, and the generally diminishing amusement value.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I eventually stopped following one of the lolcat sites due to the 
> extreme level of advertising, and the generally diminishing amusement value.

  Just use AdBlock Plus. It's surprisingly effective (it can remove ads even
from flash videos).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2011 08:55 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I eventually stopped following one of the lolcat sites due to the
>> extreme level of advertising, and the generally diminishing amusement value.
>
>    Just use AdBlock Plus. It's surprisingly effective (it can remove ads even
> from flash videos).

By "extreme level of advertising", I mean "each page takes 45 seconds to 
load, and a further 30 seconds to finish layout".

Still, perhaps AdBlock can fix it. I don't know, I've never used it. 
(Come to think of it, I don't even know where to obtain it. But that can 
be fixed...)

The other reason was that the pictures steadily increased in volume, but 
the actually amusing ones became rarer and rarer...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> By "extreme level of advertising", I mean "each page takes 45 seconds to 
> load, and a further 30 seconds to finish layout".

  If the loading time is due to ads, then it will obviously speed up because
ads will not be loaded at all.

> Still, perhaps AdBlock can fix it. I don't know, I've never used it. 
> (Come to think of it, I don't even know where to obtain it. But that can 
> be fixed...)

  Go to firefox's official add-ons page and search for "adblock plus".
https://addons.mozilla.org/

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-07-07 15:20, Orchid XP v8 a écrit :
>
>
> http://failblog.org/2011/06/20/epic-fail-photos-fire-safety-fail-2/
>

I think that the green wall was a later addition and that at the time of 
the installation of the fire extinguisher, there was no problem at all 
with its location.  Unfortunately, the guys who put up the drywall were 
not asked to move the fire extinguisher, and just like the fence going 
through the goal posts, it fell under the "not-my-problem" category.



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 08/07/2011 02:41 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2011-07-07 15:20, Orchid XP v8 a écrit :
>>
>>
>> http://failblog.org/2011/06/20/epic-fail-photos-fire-safety-fail-2/
>>
>
> I think that the green wall was a later addition and that at the time of
> the installation of the fire extinguisher, there was no problem at all
> with its location. Unfortunately, the guys who put up the drywall were
> not asked to move the fire extinguisher, and just like the fence going
> through the goal posts, it fell under the "not-my-problem" category.

Yeah, probably something like that. Still, even without the wall there, 
that's a hell of a long way off the ground. How was it ever reachable?

And I still can't figure out how you could build a fence through a goal 
mouth and not realise. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 7/8/2011 7:19, Invisible wrote:
> Yeah, probably something like that. Still, even without the wall there,
> that's a hell of a long way off the ground. How was it ever reachable?

It looks like it's a second-floor walkway. The left side of the picture 
shows a railing, and the right side has a wall for whatever reason. I'm 
guessing the second floor was open, with railings, and then they put an 
"office" on the second floor by walling in some of the previously-open space.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:54:20 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> A great deal of what's on fail blog isn't fail at all. But they have
>>> to keep up now, so ...
>>
>> More and more of it seems to be repeats lately, too.
> 
> I eventually stopped following one of the lolcat sites due to the
> extreme level of advertising, and the generally diminishing amusement
> value.

I've been getting tired of the video ads - 15-30 second ad, followed by 5 
second fail, repeated 3 times, more slowly each time, followed by 10 
second "Failblog" postscript.  Oh, and it's usually the same damned ad 
each time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/07/08 04:13, Invisible a écrit :
> On 08/07/2011 08:55 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> I eventually stopped following one of the lolcat sites due to the
>>> extreme level of advertising, and the generally diminishing amusement
>>> value.
>>
>> Just use AdBlock Plus. It's surprisingly effective (it can remove ads
>> even
>> from flash videos).
>
> By "extreme level of advertising", I mean "each page takes 45 seconds to
> load, and a further 30 seconds to finish layout".
>
> Still, perhaps AdBlock can fix it. I don't know, I've never used it.
> (Come to think of it, I don't even know where to obtain it. But that can
> be fixed...)
>
> The other reason was that the pictures steadily increased in volume, but
> the actually amusing ones became rarer and rarer...

AdBlock actualy prevent the ads from even starting to load.
It's realy a "Can't live without" addon.

I red reports about sites that suposedly took over a minute to load even 
on extreme speed broadband. Those sites only took seconds to load on my 
side. Peoples complained a LOT about the adds content of those sites, 
while I never was aware that there was even a single add...
There was also floods of complains about dozens of popups when entering 
and leaving the pages, popups that I never ever saw :)

Once, I received a link to a "trap" site. It contained a nifty java 
script looking like:
on_entry popup URL
on_entry popup URL
on_exit popup URL
on_exit popup URL

Where URL was the URL of the current page.

For me, it was a non-event.

Post a reply to this message

Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> I red reports about sites that suposedly took over a minute to load even 
> on extreme speed broadband. Those sites only took seconds to load on my 
> side. Peoples complained a LOT about the adds content of those sites, 
> while I never was aware that there was even a single add...
> There was also floods of complains about dozens of popups when entering 
> and leaving the pages, popups that I never ever saw :)

  It's also amusing to read comments on videos at certain video sites
complaining about the constantly appearing ads *during the video*. Ads
which I have never seen.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I've been getting tired of the video ads - 15-30 second ad, followed by 5 
> second fail, repeated 3 times, more slowly each time, followed by 10 
> second "Failblog" postscript.  Oh, and it's usually the same damned ad 
> each time.

  Just install AdBlock Plus and you'll not even know that the ads exist.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 01:59:34 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I've been getting tired of the video ads - 15-30 second ad, followed by
>> 5 second fail, repeated 3 times, more slowly each time, followed by 10
>> second "Failblog" postscript.  Oh, and it's usually the same damned ad
>> each time.
> 
>   Just install AdBlock Plus and you'll not even know that the ads exist.

I have AdBlock Plus installed (both on Firefox and on Google), and I get 
the ads.  Did you really think I hadn't installed it, especially after 
you'd already suggested it to Andy?

Am I really one you think who would complain about something if I hadn't 
taken steps to work around it?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> AdBlock actualy prevent the ads from even starting to load.
> It's realy a "Can't live without" addon.

I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption 
that it is almost guaranteed not to work.

Designing a mere algorithm which can determine, with 100% accuracy, the 
difference between vital content and useless advertising garbage looks 
almost intractably difficult. Thus, the result would almost certainly be 
a system which either fails to block the majority of ads, or blocks the 
majority of useful content. (Or possibly both, at the same time.)

In other news, I have yet to see a spam filter which actually filters 
out spam and nothing else. (Then again, I haven't searched extensively 
for one...)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:00:48 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>> AdBlock actualy prevent the ads from even starting to load. It's realy
>> a "Can't live without" addon.
> 
> I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption
> that it is almost guaranteed not to work.

Which, of course, is why it's one of the (if not THE) most popular plugin 
for Firefox.  Surely it's popular precisely because it doesn't work at 
all, right? ;)

> Designing a mere algorithm which can determine, with 100% accuracy, the
> difference between vital content and useless advertising garbage looks
> almost intractably difficult. Thus, the result would almost certainly be
> a system which either fails to block the majority of ads, or blocks the
> majority of useful content. (Or possibly both, at the same time.)

It doesn't need to do 100% filtering - it certainly does well enough, 
though.  But you've decided it's "intractably difficult" so it's not 
worth bothering with, even though it's very popular and lots of people 
have great success with it.

Which planet are you on again? ;)

> In other news, I have yet to see a spam filter which actually filters
> out spam and nothing else. (Then again, I haven't searched extensively
> for one...)

None of them make that claim.  But by and large, spam filters do a pretty 
decent job.  The one on Google Mail, for example, *rarely* traps 
something that's not spam (I check it regularly and pull things out that 
shouldn't be, it's about 1 every 2-3 weeks for me on average).  Does it 
get it wrong occasionally?  Sure.  But a quick scan of subject lines (and 
tags - oddly, sometimes it tags messages according to my tag rules but 
still traps them as spam) can easily pick out the mistakes it makes.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> It doesn't need to do 100% filtering - it certainly does well enough,
> though.  But you've decided it's "intractably difficult" so it's not
> worth bothering with, even though it's very popular and lots of people
> have great success with it.
>
> Which planet are you on again? ;)

Ah yes, the argumentum ad populum. You realise that *millions* of people 
use Internet Explorer, right? So that *must* mean it's the best web 
browser. :-P

>> In other news, I have yet to see a spam filter which actually filters
>> out spam and nothing else. (Then again, I haven't searched extensively
>> for one...)
>
> None of them make that claim.

And now I must ask which planet *you* are on. This is /the definition/ 
of what a spam filter is. And, just like moisturising creams that are 
"guaranteed" to make you look 20 years younger, people make all sorts of 
completely unsubstantiated claims about spam filters.

> But by and large, spam filters do a pretty decent job.

By this I can only assume that you mean "the spam filters /which I have 
used/ do a pretty decent job". Because the spam filters that *I* have 
used all do a pitifully awful job.

For example, my ISP filters all my incoming email. After 5 years, it has 
/still/ failed to realise that anything containing the words "free meds" 
or "PayPal" is spam. And it has also failed to realise that anything 
containing the word "Haskell" is ham. This, after my repeatedly marking 
the spam and ham for its "learning algorithm". Unfortunately, this 
program's idea of "learning" is to blacklist or whitelist each 
individual sender, each time I press a button. How pathetic.

My employer used a system called "barracuda" I believe, and that was 
similarly hopeless. In fairness, the genuine email we receive has 
several fairly unusual characteristics. Even so, people really shouldn't 
be receiving emails with viral attachments, or links to exploit sites, 
or those fake "delivery failure notification" emails, or...

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:29:49 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>> It doesn't need to do 100% filtering - it certainly does well enough,
>> though.  But you've decided it's "intractably difficult" so it's not
>> worth bothering with, even though it's very popular and lots of people
>> have great success with it.
>>
>> Which planet are you on again? ;)
> 
> Ah yes, the argumentum ad populum. You realise that *millions* of people
> use Internet Explorer, right? So that *must* mean it's the best web
> browser. :-P

False equivalency, my friend.  IE is the default browser installed in 
Windows.  Many people use that by default.

Firefox does not ship with AdBlock Pro installed.  People download it, 
install it, and use it successfully.  I happen to be one of those people.

You, instead, have assumed "it can't possibly work" and so haven't even 
tried it.

Now, given the empirical evidence of having used it and having it work or 
the *assumption* that it isn't going to work so why bother....I think the 
empirical evidence is going to work.

>>> In other news, I have yet to see a spam filter which actually filters
>>> out spam and nothing else. (Then again, I haven't searched extensively
>>> for one...)
>>
>> None of them make that claim.
> 
> And now I must ask which planet *you* are on. This is /the definition/
> of what a spam filter is. And, just like moisturising creams that are
> "guaranteed" to make you look 20 years younger, people make all sorts of
> completely unsubstantiated claims about spam filters.

I'm on Earth.

Spam filters work to a significant extent.  Again, empirical evidence.  
100% isn't necessary to declare success or failure.

You're declaring failure because 1 message in "n" (for sufficiently large 
values of 'n') gets through.  Fact is, spam filters aren't supposed to 
block all spam.  They're supposed to reduce it, and for most people, they 
do the job properly.

>> But by and large, spam filters do a pretty decent job.
> 
> By this I can only assume that you mean "the spam filters /which I have
> used/ do a pretty decent job". Because the spam filters that *I* have
> used all do a pitifully awful job.

Fair enough point.

> For example, my ISP filters all my incoming email. After 5 years, it has
> /still/ failed to realise that anything containing the words "free meds"
> or "PayPal" is spam. And it has also failed to realise that anything
> containing the word "Haskell" is ham. This, after my repeatedly marking
> the spam and ham for its "learning algorithm". Unfortunately, this
> program's idea of "learning" is to blacklist or whitelist each
> individual sender, each time I press a button. How pathetic.
> 
> My employer used a system called "barracuda" I believe, and that was
> similarly hopeless. In fairness, the genuine email we receive has
> several fairly unusual characteristics. Even so, people really shouldn't
> be receiving emails with viral attachments, or links to exploit sites,
> or those fake "delivery failure notification" emails, or...

Have you tried something like Spamassassin?

And yes, you do work in an industry where the normal triggers for spam 
might actually be legitimate business communications - as you work in the 
pharma industry IIRC.

That doesn't mean spam filters are useless.

You'll note that I didn't say *all* spam filters were wonderful and 
flawless.  I said that spam filtering generally works well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> Firefox does not ship with AdBlock Pro installed.  People download it,
> install it, and use it successfully.  I happen to be one of those people.
>
> You, instead, have assumed "it can't possibly work" and so haven't even
> tried it.

Before we get too far into this, I would like to re-emphasize what I 
actually said:

I said I had never bothered trying such software under the /assumption/ 
that it won't work properly. I said that it looks intractably difficult. 
Then again, so does writing non-trivial software using something as 
primitive as C, and apparently people manage to do that.

In short, I would be surprised if ad-blocking technology can work. Not 
astonished, but definitely surprised.

> Spam filters work to a significant extent.  Again, empirical evidence.
> 100% isn't necessary to declare success or failure.
>
> You're declaring failure because 1 message in "n" (for sufficiently large
> values of 'n') gets through.  Fact is, spam filters aren't supposed to
> block all spam.  They're supposed to reduce it, and for most people, they
> do the job properly.

In my book, if I use a spam filter and still receive unacceptable 
quantities of spam, or have unacceptable quantities of genuine mail 
filtered, then the filter is "not working". I agree that 100% filtration 
would be almost impossible, but (for example) 3% filtration is useless.

> Have you tried something like Spamassassin?

Nope. If fact, I've never actually installed spam filtering technology 
myself. I've only had it forced upon me by whoever is operating the mail 
server.

> And yes, you do work in an industry where the normal triggers for spam
> might actually be legitimate business communications.

Quite. This has no bearing on the spam filter at home being similarly 
useless, however.

> That doesn't mean spam filters are useless.
>
> You'll note that I didn't say *all* spam filters were wonderful and
> flawless.  I said that spam filtering generally works well.

Even I didn't say that *all* spam filters are useless. I merely said 
that I've yet to see one that isn't. (I even qualified it by saying I 
haven't seen all that many.)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:47:31 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>> Firefox does not ship with AdBlock Pro installed.  People download it,
>> install it, and use it successfully.  I happen to be one of those
>> people.
>>
>> You, instead, have assumed "it can't possibly work" and so haven't even
>> tried it.
> 
> Before we get too far into this, I would like to re-emphasize what I
> actually said:
> 
> I said I had never bothered trying such software under the /assumption/
> that it won't work properly. I said that it looks intractably difficult.
> Then again, so does writing non-trivial software using something as
> primitive as C, and apparently people manage to do that.
> 
> In short, I would be surprised if ad-blocking technology can work. Not
> astonished, but definitely surprised.

Prepare yourself to be surprised, then. ;)

It works pretty well.  Not 100%, but IME better than 90%.

>> You're declaring failure because 1 message in "n" (for sufficiently
>> large values of 'n') gets through.  Fact is, spam filters aren't
>> supposed to block all spam.  They're supposed to reduce it, and for
>> most people, they do the job properly.
> 
> In my book, if I use a spam filter and still receive unacceptable
> quantities of spam, or have unacceptable quantities of genuine mail
> filtered, then the filter is "not working". I agree that 100% filtration
> would be almost impossible, but (for example) 3% filtration is useless.

We can agree on that last sentence.  Now, using various spam filtering 
technologies myself over the years, I've seen some good ones, and some 
excellent ones.

3% filtration is not what I've seen with any solution that I've used.

>> Have you tried something like Spamassassin?
> 
> Nope. If fact, I've never actually installed spam filtering technology
> myself. I've only had it forced upon me by whoever is operating the mail
> server.

One of the benefits of using something like fetchmail to pull from an 
external server to your own is that you can do this.  I use fetchmail to 
pull from my Earthlink account (which has its own spam filtering 
enabled), and fetchmail delivers to my local mailbox after running it 
through spamassassin to catch the ones that got through the Earthlink 
filters.

>> And yes, you do work in an industry where the normal triggers for spam
>> might actually be legitimate business communications.
> 
> Quite. This has no bearing on the spam filter at home being similarly
> useless, however.

No, that has to do with incompetence at your mail provider or an improper 
configuration on your account.  Since I don't know what they use, I 
couldn't comment on that.

>> That doesn't mean spam filters are useless.
>>
>> You'll note that I didn't say *all* spam filters were wonderful and
>> flawless.  I said that spam filtering generally works well.
> 
> Even I didn't say that *all* spam filters are useless. I merely said
> that I've yet to see one that isn't. (I even qualified it by saying I
> haven't seen all that many.)

Fair enough.  You seemed to be implying it in your original post, but re-
reading it, I see that I inferred something that perhaps wasn't there.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7/11/2011 2:29, Invisible wrote:
> Ah yes, the argumentum ad populum. You realise that *millions* of people use
> Internet Explorer, right? So that *must* mean it's the best web browser. :-P

No, it means the web browser works. What you're missing is the fact that 
people complain they have to do something special to make IE6 work. But 
until very recently, everyone *was* doing something special to make IE6 
work, and hence IE6 works.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 11-7-2011 11:10, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Which planet are you on again? ;)

Andy is from Milton Keynes. I am not sure if that is a whole planet or 
tha last village populated by irreducible Celts that still resists to 
the Google invaders.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:03:44 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 11-7-2011 11:10, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Which planet are you on again? ;)
> 
> Andy is from Milton Keynes. I am not sure if that is a whole planet or
> tha last village populated by irreducible Celts that still resists to
> the Google invaders.

LOL

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/07/11 05:00, Invisible a écrit :
>> AdBlock actualy prevent the ads from even starting to load.
>> It's realy a "Can't live without" addon.
>
> I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption
> that it is almost guaranteed not to work.
>
> Designing a mere algorithm which can determine, with 100% accuracy, the
> difference between vital content and useless advertising garbage looks
> almost intractably difficult. Thus, the result would almost certainly be
> a system which either fails to block the majority of ads, or blocks the
> majority of useful content. (Or possibly both, at the same time.)
>
> In other news, I have yet to see a spam filter which actually filters
> out spam and nothing else. (Then again, I haven't searched extensively
> for one...)

The spam filter on Thunderbird is prety good and becomes beter with 
time. It literaly learn what is spam and what is not.

The spam filter on GMail is also exedingly good and effecient.

It's been a LOOONG time the last time ether of those missed a spam or 
mistoke legitimate mail for spam.


Adblock use a black/white list aproach. The black list contains an 
extensive list of known add servers.
If it misses some adds, you can right click it and set it to be blocked.
It keeps a log of blocked elements.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption 
> that it is almost guaranteed not to work.

  Just try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

> Designing a mere algorithm which can determine, with 100% accuracy, the 
> difference between vital content and useless advertising garbage looks 
> almost intractably difficult. Thus, the result would almost certainly be 
> a system which either fails to block the majority of ads, or blocks the 
> majority of useful content. (Or possibly both, at the same time.)

  It doesn't need to do smart filtering. It only needs a blacklist. Said
list updates automatically.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/07/2011 07:15 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption
>> that it is almost guaranteed not to work.
>
>    Just try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

Well, yes, there is that...

(In a stunning turn of events, I actually have some work to do today. 
Yeah, I know. Imagine that...)

>    It doesn't need to do smart filtering. It only needs a blacklist. Said
> list updates automatically.

I don't get how that can work.

If it blacklists the server IP addresses, all you need to do is copy the 
ads to another server and the blacklist is defeated. As a bonus, if you 
put the ads on the same server as the genuine content, then you *can't* 
blacklist the server or you'll be blocking genuine content.

If it blacklists the MD5 hash of the ad files, just take each image and 
change 1 pixel. The MD5 hash is now completely different, but the ad 
still works just as well.

If it blacklists the file /name/, it's trivial to rename it.

If it blacklists the code fragments used to link to the adverts, just 
make any trivial cosmetic change to the code and you've defeated the 
blacklist.

All of this on top of the fact that blacklists are generally ineffective 
anyway. (If you filter anything - spam, malware, adverts, whatever - 
based on a blacklist, then that blacklist will always be out of date and 
you need an army of people to constantly update it for you.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If it blacklists the server IP addresses, all you need to do is copy the 
> ads to another server and the blacklist is defeated. As a bonus, if you 
> put the ads on the same server as the genuine content, then you *can't* 
> blacklist the server or you'll be blocking genuine content.

  The vast majority of ads come from external URLs. Only an extremely
small minority of ads originate from the same server as the page you are
looking at. The reason for this is that advertisers pay people to put
their ads on their websites, and these ads need to change frequently to
be effective. Hence these websites link to the advertiser's servers to
display the ads. Thus it's enough to blacklist the URLs pointing to the
ad-producing directories in the advertisers' servers.

  The advertisers can't change the URLs because it would break the millions
of websites which show those ads. Hence blacklisting is quite effective.

  Of course *new* ad servers and directories inside those servers pop up
all the time, but that's why the blacklists are updated.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/07/2011 09:25 AM, Warp wrote:

>    The vast majority of ads come from external URLs. Only an extremely
> small minority of ads originate from the same server as the page you are
> looking at. The reason for this is that advertisers pay people to put
> their ads on their websites, and these ads need to change frequently to
> be effective. Hence these websites link to the advertiser's servers to
> display the ads. Thus it's enough to blacklist the URLs pointing to the
> ad-producing directories in the advertisers' servers.
>
>    The advertisers can't change the URLs because it would break the millions
> of websites which show those ads. Hence blacklisting is quite effective.
>
>    Of course *new* ad servers and directories inside those servers pop up
> all the time, but that's why the blacklists are updated.

So, in essence, your argument is that the majority of ads come from a 
small number of static servers?

Certainly I could easily believe that most of the more unknown 
ad-encrusted sites are just being paid to link to somebody else's 
adverts. But if I went to somewhere like a big movie studio, I would 
imagine all the ads on their site probably come from the same server as 
the actual content. (Then again, if you go to a website which exists 
solely to advertise a company's product... the adverts *are* the 
content, in a sense.)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Certainly I could easily believe that most of the more unknown 
> ad-encrusted sites are just being paid to link to somebody else's 
> adverts. But if I went to somewhere like a big movie studio, I would 
> imagine all the ads on their site probably come from the same server as 
> the actual content. (Then again, if you go to a website which exists 
> solely to advertise a company's product... the adverts *are* the 
> content, in a sense.)

  That doesn't really matter for two reasons:

1) Even in that case the ads usually come from a specific directory hierachy
which can be blacklisted.

2) If *one* website bypasses AdBlock, who cares? The fact that AdBlock works
on the million other websites who have external advertisers is reason enough
to use it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-07-11 05:29, Invisible a écrit :
>
> And now I must ask which planet *you* are on. This is /the definition/
> of what a spam filter is. And, just like moisturising creams that are
> "guaranteed" to make you look 20 years younger, people make all sorts of
> completely unsubstantiated claims about spam filters.

Find me one, just one, moisturizing cream that makes such a claim.

They use more weasel words than the Wikipedia page on the Rwandan genocide.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-07-12 04:09, Invisible a écrit :
> On 12/07/2011 07:15 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption
>>> that it is almost guaranteed not to work.
>>
>> Just try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
>
> Well, yes, there is that...
>
> (In a stunning turn of events, I actually have some work to do today.
> Yeah, I know. Imagine that...)
>
>> It doesn't need to do smart filtering. It only needs a blacklist. Said
>> list updates automatically.
>
> I don't get how that can work.
>

Put the following line at the end of your hosts file

127.0.0.1	ads.doubleclick.net

You'll be surprised to see how many ads disappear.  One line.  50% of 
all Internet ads gone.  Not bad, eh?

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/07/12 06:59, Francois Labreque a écrit :
> Le 2011-07-12 04:09, Invisible a écrit :
>> On 12/07/2011 07:15 AM, Warp wrote:
>>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption
>>>> that it is almost guaranteed not to work.
>>>
>>> Just try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
>>
>> Well, yes, there is that...
>>
>> (In a stunning turn of events, I actually have some work to do today.
>> Yeah, I know. Imagine that...)
>>
>>> It doesn't need to do smart filtering. It only needs a blacklist. Said
>>> list updates automatically.
>>
>> I don't get how that can work.
>>
>
> Put the following line at the end of your hosts file
>
> 127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net
>
> You'll be surprised to see how many ads disappear. One line. 50% of all
> Internet ads gone. Not bad, eh?
>

It's about the biggest ads pusher and cross sites profiler you can find. 
But just that line is not quite enough, it also use those:
ads1.doubleclick.net
ads2.doubleclick.net
ads3.doubleclick.net
ads4.doubleclick.net
ads5.doubleclick.net
ads6.doubleclick.net
ads7.doubleclick.net
ads8.doubleclick.net
ads9.doubleclick.net

It also use the same with .com.

Adblock filters it as *.doubleclick.*

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011-07-12 20:16, Alain a écrit :
> Le 2011/07/12 06:59, Francois Labreque a écrit :
>> Le 2011-07-12 04:09, Invisible a écrit :
>>> On 12/07/2011 07:15 AM, Warp wrote:
>>>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>>> I've never installed this or any similar system under the assumption
>>>>> that it is almost guaranteed not to work.
>>>>
>>>> Just try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
>>>
>>> Well, yes, there is that...
>>>
>>> (In a stunning turn of events, I actually have some work to do today.
>>> Yeah, I know. Imagine that...)
>>>
>>>> It doesn't need to do smart filtering. It only needs a blacklist. Said
>>>> list updates automatically.
>>>
>>> I don't get how that can work.
>>>
>>
>> Put the following line at the end of your hosts file
>>
>> 127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net
>>
>> You'll be surprised to see how many ads disappear. One line. 50% of all
>> Internet ads gone. Not bad, eh?
>>
>
> It's about the biggest ads pusher and cross sites profiler you can find.
> But just that line is not quite enough, it also use those:
> ads1.doubleclick.net
> ads2.doubleclick.net
> ads3.doubleclick.net
> ads4.doubleclick.net
> ads5.doubleclick.net
> ads6.doubleclick.net
> ads7.doubleclick.net
> ads8.doubleclick.net
> ads9.doubleclick.net
>
> It also use the same with .com.
>
> Adblock filters it as *.doubleclick.*

I wasn't trying to be exhaustive ON PURPOSE.  Andrew seems to think that 
something is worthless unless it's 100% efficient.  I was just pointing 
out how trivial it is to do most of the work.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 11/07/2011 10:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm on Earth.

Bloody Ada! When did you go there?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 11/07/2011 5:03 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 11-7-2011 11:10, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Which planet are you on again? ;)
>
> Andy is from Milton Keynes. I am not sure if that is a whole planet or
> tha last village populated by irreducible Celts that still resists to
> the Google invaders.
>

Not Kelts but pure Angles and Saxons. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 05:07:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 11/07/2011 10:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm on Earth.
> 
> Bloody Ada! When did you go there?

At the moment, it's a vacation spot, with some light contracting work (as 
of today).

*Very* light, not enough to really subsist on, but enough to stretch the 
savings out. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 14/07/2011 6:10 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 05:07:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2011 10:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I'm on Earth.
>>
>> Bloody Ada! When did you go there?
>
> At the moment, it's a vacation spot, with some light contracting work (as
> of today).
>

Watch out for the natives, they are strange.

> *Very* light, not enough to really subsist on, but enough to stretch the
> savings out. :)
>

Better than nout and it fills gaps in your resume.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 03:42:36 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 14/07/2011 6:10 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 05:07:20 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/07/2011 10:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I'm on Earth.
>>>
>>> Bloody Ada! When did you go there?
>>
>> At the moment, it's a vacation spot, with some light contracting work
>> (as of today).
>>
>>
> Watch out for the natives, they are strange.

Especially in *this* neck of the woods.

http://notalwaysright.com/polarized-politics-predisposes-people-to-puerility/12534

>> *Very* light, not enough to really subsist on, but enough to stretch
>> the savings out. :)
>>
>>
> Better than nout and it fills gaps in your resume.

That's certainly true, too.  And as it happens, I'm learning about 
Microsoft technologies doing it, so rounding out the experience with 
something a little more recent than 8+ years ago.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7/7/2011 4:12 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 07/07/2011 08:52 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, a few weeks ago my sister introduced me to "fail blog".
>>
>> I'm puzzled. Long time ago I posted a list of such websites I follow
>> regularly, and failblog.org was the first one of them. I could swear that
>> you responded to my post then. (Of course my memory might fail me.)
>
> Or perhaps it is *my* memory that fails, of course. ;-)
>

FAIL!

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message