<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_17_1436257</id>
	<title>Google Says Ad Blockers Will Save Online Ads</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1261062360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>azoblue writes <i>"Google &mdash; the world's largest online ad broker &mdash; sees <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/16/google\_on\_adblockers/">no reason to worry about the addition of ad-blocking extensions</a> to its Chrome browser. Online advertisers will ensure their ads aren't too annoying, the company says, and netizens will ultimately realize that online advertising is a good thing."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>azoblue writes " Google    the world 's largest online ad broker    sees no reason to worry about the addition of ad-blocking extensions to its Chrome browser .
Online advertisers will ensure their ads are n't too annoying , the company says , and netizens will ultimately realize that online advertising is a good thing .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>azoblue writes "Google — the world's largest online ad broker — sees no reason to worry about the addition of ad-blocking extensions to its Chrome browser.
Online advertisers will ensure their ads aren't too annoying, the company says, and netizens will ultimately realize that online advertising is a good thing.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473686</id>
	<title>Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1261066740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started out just blocking Flash ads and obnoxious (= animated) image ads. I've since graduated to blocking all the ads I can, and using Greasemonkey to remove parts of sites I find objectionable (an iframe here, a div there...).</p><p>There will always be a group of us who have discovered the ability to control and customise our web browsing and <b>will not give it up</b>.</p><p>Besides, I don't know anyone who actually *likes* ads; at best they tolerate and ignore them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started out just blocking Flash ads and obnoxious ( = animated ) image ads .
I 've since graduated to blocking all the ads I can , and using Greasemonkey to remove parts of sites I find objectionable ( an iframe here , a div there... ) .There will always be a group of us who have discovered the ability to control and customise our web browsing and will not give it up.Besides , I do n't know anyone who actually * likes * ads ; at best they tolerate and ignore them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started out just blocking Flash ads and obnoxious (= animated) image ads.
I've since graduated to blocking all the ads I can, and using Greasemonkey to remove parts of sites I find objectionable (an iframe here, a div there...).There will always be a group of us who have discovered the ability to control and customise our web browsing and will not give it up.Besides, I don't know anyone who actually *likes* ads; at best they tolerate and ignore them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476664</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>silent\_artichoke</author>
	<datestamp>1261078860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't know that <a href="http://zoosystems.com/software.html" title="zoosystems.com">this zoo inventory software</a> [zoosystems.com] existed. I found it rather quickly by searching for "software zoo inventory". On Google, even. Not a single ad was needed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know that this zoo inventory software [ zoosystems.com ] existed .
I found it rather quickly by searching for " software zoo inventory " .
On Google , even .
Not a single ad was needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know that this zoo inventory software [zoosystems.com] existed.
I found it rather quickly by searching for "software zoo inventory".
On Google, even.
Not a single ad was needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473614</id>
	<title>Firefox users with Adblock: 12\%</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1261066500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps of interest: <a href="http://blog.mozilla.com/data/2009/08/10/tracking-down-the-number-of-firefox-addon-users-with-hadoop/" title="mozilla.com">how many Firefox users currently use AdBlock Plus</a> [mozilla.com]? According to this reference (search for "AdBlock" to find the spot), the number is around 12\%.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps of interest : how many Firefox users currently use AdBlock Plus [ mozilla.com ] ?
According to this reference ( search for " AdBlock " to find the spot ) , the number is around 12 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps of interest: how many Firefox users currently use AdBlock Plus [mozilla.com]?
According to this reference (search for "AdBlock" to find the spot), the number is around 12\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478124</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1261040760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent point.</p><p>Yes, it was a tricky decision. As an indy with zero advertising budget, it's one of the few ways to get word out, and get to Google where you can find me, if you care. And yes, I'm aware that it doesn't merge well with my words.</p><p>Because real life is in shades of grey. There actually is some advertisement that I find acceptable. But you can't say that to the ad people or what the <b>hear</b> is that you love ads, or at least <b>their</b> ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent point.Yes , it was a tricky decision .
As an indy with zero advertising budget , it 's one of the few ways to get word out , and get to Google where you can find me , if you care .
And yes , I 'm aware that it does n't merge well with my words.Because real life is in shades of grey .
There actually is some advertisement that I find acceptable .
But you ca n't say that to the ad people or what the hear is that you love ads , or at least their ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent point.Yes, it was a tricky decision.
As an indy with zero advertising budget, it's one of the few ways to get word out, and get to Google where you can find me, if you care.
And yes, I'm aware that it doesn't merge well with my words.Because real life is in shades of grey.
There actually is some advertisement that I find acceptable.
But you can't say that to the ad people or what the hear is that you love ads, or at least their ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473854</id>
	<title>Ad Types</title>
	<author>Foxxxy</author>
	<datestamp>1261067340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the fact that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. allows ads to be disabled.  I enable every once and a while and click around just for fun.</p><p>What I really dislike are the ads that take up 80\% of the screen such as the new CNN ads for Lexus and Mac that expand if you accidentally hover over them and take up the whole screen.  The honor system works if you prove that you aren't trying in your face ads.  I don't mind the occasional flashing ad in a small section of the screen, chew up my whole screen or have some loud audio and I visit the site a lot less.  Show me your product or service and I will make a personal decision.  Jam your ad in my face and I won't even take the time to see if you really are 1000 times better than your competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the fact that / .
allows ads to be disabled .
I enable every once and a while and click around just for fun.What I really dislike are the ads that take up 80 \ % of the screen such as the new CNN ads for Lexus and Mac that expand if you accidentally hover over them and take up the whole screen .
The honor system works if you prove that you are n't trying in your face ads .
I do n't mind the occasional flashing ad in a small section of the screen , chew up my whole screen or have some loud audio and I visit the site a lot less .
Show me your product or service and I will make a personal decision .
Jam your ad in my face and I wo n't even take the time to see if you really are 1000 times better than your competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the fact that /.
allows ads to be disabled.
I enable every once and a while and click around just for fun.What I really dislike are the ads that take up 80\% of the screen such as the new CNN ads for Lexus and Mac that expand if you accidentally hover over them and take up the whole screen.
The honor system works if you prove that you aren't trying in your face ads.
I don't mind the occasional flashing ad in a small section of the screen, chew up my whole screen or have some loud audio and I visit the site a lot less.
Show me your product or service and I will make a personal decision.
Jam your ad in my face and I won't even take the time to see if you really are 1000 times better than your competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475202</id>
	<title>Re:Kick the Pig to Win an iPOD * FLASH * FLASH *</title>
	<author>Cedric Tsui</author>
	<datestamp>1261072860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In this particular case, I would settle with standard advertising laws being implemented on the internet. <br> In Canada, the things you say in advertisements must be true. Telus recently sued Rogers because they continued commercials saying they have the fastest internet service after Telus completed an infrastructure upgrade which put that claim on shaky ground. So I'm saying, this ad should only exist if I ACTUALLY WIN AN IPOD IF I KICK THE PIG!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this particular case , I would settle with standard advertising laws being implemented on the internet .
In Canada , the things you say in advertisements must be true .
Telus recently sued Rogers because they continued commercials saying they have the fastest internet service after Telus completed an infrastructure upgrade which put that claim on shaky ground .
So I 'm saying , this ad should only exist if I ACTUALLY WIN AN IPOD IF I KICK THE PIG ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this particular case, I would settle with standard advertising laws being implemented on the internet.
In Canada, the things you say in advertisements must be true.
Telus recently sued Rogers because they continued commercials saying they have the fastest internet service after Telus completed an infrastructure upgrade which put that claim on shaky ground.
So I'm saying, this ad should only exist if I ACTUALLY WIN AN IPOD IF I KICK THE PIG!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474186</id>
	<title>Re:Why I block some ads</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1261068600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... anything that animates or continuously moves is very distracting for me when I am reading something.</p></div></blockquote><p>Believe me, you're not the only one. That's one of the reason that I browse with the plug-ins disabled. All that's left is animated GIFs and those are less frequent these days, being replaced by Flash ads instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... anything that animates or continuously moves is very distracting for me when I am reading something.Believe me , you 're not the only one .
That 's one of the reason that I browse with the plug-ins disabled .
All that 's left is animated GIFs and those are less frequent these days , being replaced by Flash ads instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... anything that animates or continuously moves is very distracting for me when I am reading something.Believe me, you're not the only one.
That's one of the reason that I browse with the plug-ins disabled.
All that's left is animated GIFs and those are less frequent these days, being replaced by Flash ads instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473700</id>
	<title>Obvious conclusion is obvious.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, maybe it is because Google's ads are text. Most of the ad-blockers are actually image blockers...so, ad blockers don't really have an impact on Google's advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , maybe it is because Google 's ads are text .
Most of the ad-blockers are actually image blockers...so , ad blockers do n't really have an impact on Google 's advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, maybe it is because Google's ads are text.
Most of the ad-blockers are actually image blockers...so, ad blockers don't really have an impact on Google's advertising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475596</id>
	<title>Re:The very next useful ad I see...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1261074600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've never seen an ad for a movie or TV show and thought, "Huh, well that looks good.  I'd like to see that."  You've never learned about the existence of a product for the first time through advertising?  Never?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've never seen an ad for a movie or TV show and thought , " Huh , well that looks good .
I 'd like to see that .
" You 've never learned about the existence of a product for the first time through advertising ?
Never ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've never seen an ad for a movie or TV show and thought, "Huh, well that looks good.
I'd like to see that.
"  You've never learned about the existence of a product for the first time through advertising?
Never?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473724</id>
	<title>Standards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't mind them so much if there were at least some standards, like limited to a few per website, nothing annoying, simple text and images, perhaps allowing for moving ads where appropriate and non distracting, also no sound, EVER!</p><p>Im also concerned they can contain dodgy code and stuff so only a few reputable company's should serve ads, basically we should be in control of what is acceptable and not the advertisers for once, it's that or we will just have to keep blocking them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't mind them so much if there were at least some standards , like limited to a few per website , nothing annoying , simple text and images , perhaps allowing for moving ads where appropriate and non distracting , also no sound , EVER ! Im also concerned they can contain dodgy code and stuff so only a few reputable company 's should serve ads , basically we should be in control of what is acceptable and not the advertisers for once , it 's that or we will just have to keep blocking them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't mind them so much if there were at least some standards, like limited to a few per website, nothing annoying, simple text and images, perhaps allowing for moving ads where appropriate and non distracting, also no sound, EVER!Im also concerned they can contain dodgy code and stuff so only a few reputable company's should serve ads, basically we should be in control of what is acceptable and not the advertisers for once, it's that or we will just have to keep blocking them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477424</id>
	<title>Time For AdBlock By Default</title>
	<author>u64</author>
	<datestamp>1261081620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Ads are opt-out. That's why we need Browsers that<br>AdBlock By Default to gain back the balance we had. And to<br>give back privicy to all those non-technical people that<br>doesnt have a clue what to choose.</p><p>I install all Browser's to people with proper hosts and<br>some extra fine-tuning Browser-settings that hosts-file cant do.</p><p>I'm thinking of creating a Schedule job bat script that wget's an<br>updated hosts file every so and so...</p><p>But even this wont solve the whole problem. I'm already seeing<br>css-ads that i cant block yet. My battle to stop annoying web-browsing<br>has only begun.</p><p>Google:"The market will sort itself"<br>Yes it would if we lived in a capitalist utopia where everyone do<br>business without any greed to screw people over. And where customers<br>where in-depth experts in all details for every deal they make. Then<br>yes indeed such a world would be sweet.</p><p>epic [facepalm]</p><p>I sure hope Germany leads the way and ban AdSense spyware and all tracking<br>methods that could (and will) be used against us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Ads are opt-out .
That 's why we need Browsers thatAdBlock By Default to gain back the balance we had .
And togive back privicy to all those non-technical people thatdoesnt have a clue what to choose.I install all Browser 's to people with proper hosts andsome extra fine-tuning Browser-settings that hosts-file cant do.I 'm thinking of creating a Schedule job bat script that wget 's anupdated hosts file every so and so...But even this wont solve the whole problem .
I 'm already seeingcss-ads that i cant block yet .
My battle to stop annoying web-browsinghas only begun.Google : " The market will sort itself " Yes it would if we lived in a capitalist utopia where everyone dobusiness without any greed to screw people over .
And where customerswhere in-depth experts in all details for every deal they make .
Thenyes indeed such a world would be sweet.epic [ facepalm ] I sure hope Germany leads the way and ban AdSense spyware and all trackingmethods that could ( and will ) be used against us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Ads are opt-out.
That's why we need Browsers thatAdBlock By Default to gain back the balance we had.
And togive back privicy to all those non-technical people thatdoesnt have a clue what to choose.I install all Browser's to people with proper hosts andsome extra fine-tuning Browser-settings that hosts-file cant do.I'm thinking of creating a Schedule job bat script that wget's anupdated hosts file every so and so...But even this wont solve the whole problem.
I'm already seeingcss-ads that i cant block yet.
My battle to stop annoying web-browsinghas only begun.Google:"The market will sort itself"Yes it would if we lived in a capitalist utopia where everyone dobusiness without any greed to screw people over.
And where customerswhere in-depth experts in all details for every deal they make.
Thenyes indeed such a world would be sweet.epic [facepalm]I sure hope Germany leads the way and ban AdSense spyware and all trackingmethods that could (and will) be used against us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474342</id>
	<title>So don't be indiscriminate...</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261069260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the solutions would not blocking ads from those providers which play perfectly nice (as Google does). This could actually promote them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the solutions would not blocking ads from those providers which play perfectly nice ( as Google does ) .
This could actually promote them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the solutions would not blocking ads from those providers which play perfectly nice (as Google does).
This could actually promote them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</id>
	<title>wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1261066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course the core assumption here is that people block ads because the ad <b>content</b> is a problem.</p><p>What they don't realize (and what people in marketing <b>can not</b> realize, or they would have to admit that their whole professions is being a parasite and a PITA) is that it is the advertisement <b>itself</b> that is the problem.</p><p>I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use. I don't want to see your crap. If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google. The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the core assumption here is that people block ads because the ad content is a problem.What they do n't realize ( and what people in marketing can not realize , or they would have to admit that their whole professions is being a parasite and a PITA ) is that it is the advertisement itself that is the problem.I do n't give a heck about what you 're advertising for , nor what style , images , words , whatever you use .
I do n't want to see your crap .
If I need " product information " , I will find it - ironically - on Google .
The difference is that I 'll be looking for it , instead of getting it shoved down my throat , willingly or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the core assumption here is that people block ads because the ad content is a problem.What they don't realize (and what people in marketing can not realize, or they would have to admit that their whole professions is being a parasite and a PITA) is that it is the advertisement itself that is the problem.I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use.
I don't want to see your crap.
If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google.
The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473620</id>
	<title>ok sure</title>
	<author>daveb1</author>
	<datestamp>1261066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>ok sure some of google's ads are useful. But most ads on the internet are just garbage. You have the pop up, the flash, the sound / combination, alternating images<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... etc. all of these ads are part of EVIL user interface design. Therefore, most of use these days block all ads on the intertubes.

Nothing to see here. Move along!</htmltext>
<tokenext>ok sure some of google 's ads are useful .
But most ads on the internet are just garbage .
You have the pop up , the flash , the sound / combination , alternating images .... etc. all of these ads are part of EVIL user interface design .
Therefore , most of use these days block all ads on the intertubes .
Nothing to see here .
Move along !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok sure some of google's ads are useful.
But most ads on the internet are just garbage.
You have the pop up, the flash, the sound / combination, alternating images .... etc. all of these ads are part of EVIL user interface design.
Therefore, most of use these days block all ads on the intertubes.
Nothing to see here.
Move along!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473964</id>
	<title>Bullshit -- It's an arms race.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ad people will always be pushing to see what they can get away with and the browsers will always play catch-up until there are some fundamental changes to browser and plugin security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ad people will always be pushing to see what they can get away with and the browsers will always play catch-up until there are some fundamental changes to browser and plugin security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ad people will always be pushing to see what they can get away with and the browsers will always play catch-up until there are some fundamental changes to browser and plugin security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475434</id>
	<title>Re:Google Mind Trick</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261074000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you&rsquo;re so influencable... then why don&rsquo;t you come over and I&rsquo;ll show you my beautiful pendulum here?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you    re so influencable... then why don    t you come over and I    ll show you my beautiful pendulum here ?
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you’re so influencable... then why don’t you come over and I’ll show you my beautiful pendulum here?
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30483756</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261072920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about a "load ads last" option too? Countless times do I have to wait on the ads to look at the content I want. On a netbook/slow internet connection it can just become unusable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a " load ads last " option too ?
Countless times do I have to wait on the ads to look at the content I want .
On a netbook/slow internet connection it can just become unusable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a "load ads last" option too?
Countless times do I have to wait on the ads to look at the content I want.
On a netbook/slow internet connection it can just become unusable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</id>
	<title>A good thing</title>
	<author>Thyamine</author>
	<datestamp>1261066260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be ok with the occasional banner ad or something along those lines, but we all know that for every advertiser that attempts to play nicely, a dozen others will come up with some new obnoxious ad.  Lately on Wired I've noticed that I have to carefully move my mouse down the page, otherwise I trigger same extremely annoying pop-up/overlay Flash ad often containing sound or moving video which covers the page.  I also recently started trying Chrome, so this could be something they've been doing for a while I'm not sure.  <br>
<br>
I think most people can understand how ads are good in keeping sites free, but I don't think we'll have the pleasure of non-intrusive ads ever.  So we'll all be stuck using ad-blockers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be ok with the occasional banner ad or something along those lines , but we all know that for every advertiser that attempts to play nicely , a dozen others will come up with some new obnoxious ad .
Lately on Wired I 've noticed that I have to carefully move my mouse down the page , otherwise I trigger same extremely annoying pop-up/overlay Flash ad often containing sound or moving video which covers the page .
I also recently started trying Chrome , so this could be something they 've been doing for a while I 'm not sure .
I think most people can understand how ads are good in keeping sites free , but I do n't think we 'll have the pleasure of non-intrusive ads ever .
So we 'll all be stuck using ad-blockers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be ok with the occasional banner ad or something along those lines, but we all know that for every advertiser that attempts to play nicely, a dozen others will come up with some new obnoxious ad.
Lately on Wired I've noticed that I have to carefully move my mouse down the page, otherwise I trigger same extremely annoying pop-up/overlay Flash ad often containing sound or moving video which covers the page.
I also recently started trying Chrome, so this could be something they've been doing for a while I'm not sure.
I think most people can understand how ads are good in keeping sites free, but I don't think we'll have the pleasure of non-intrusive ads ever.
So we'll all be stuck using ad-blockers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475776</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261075440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The entire point of an unsolicited ad is to grab a person's attention. If it doesn't do that then it's not working. And a person's attention is valuable to them.</p></div><p>The ads you are talking about are the type that try to grab your attention <i>and convince you that their product is something you want</i>.<br>Google ads always try to be relevant to something <i>you're already looking for</i>.<br>It's the difference between ads in a trade journal and pharmaceutical ads in Time Magazine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire point of an unsolicited ad is to grab a person 's attention .
If it does n't do that then it 's not working .
And a person 's attention is valuable to them.The ads you are talking about are the type that try to grab your attention and convince you that their product is something you want.Google ads always try to be relevant to something you 're already looking for.It 's the difference between ads in a trade journal and pharmaceutical ads in Time Magazine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire point of an unsolicited ad is to grab a person's attention.
If it doesn't do that then it's not working.
And a person's attention is valuable to them.The ads you are talking about are the type that try to grab your attention and convince you that their product is something you want.Google ads always try to be relevant to something you're already looking for.It's the difference between ads in a trade journal and pharmaceutical ads in Time Magazine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30503208</id>
	<title>Re:I don't use Adblock Plus</title>
	<author>KlausBreuer</author>
	<datestamp>1261313160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I guess one can get used to ads if you see enough of them.<br>I, however, didn't: no TV. No Radio. Always, always an Adblocker on the net. German highways: no adverts allowed.</p><p>And... why should I allow advertisers space on my monitors? I buy high-res systems because I need that, and see no sense in giving a good part of that away for some stuff aimed at morons...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I guess one can get used to ads if you see enough of them.I , however , did n't : no TV .
No Radio .
Always , always an Adblocker on the net .
German highways : no adverts allowed.And... why should I allow advertisers space on my monitors ?
I buy high-res systems because I need that , and see no sense in giving a good part of that away for some stuff aimed at morons.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I guess one can get used to ads if you see enough of them.I, however, didn't: no TV.
No Radio.
Always, always an Adblocker on the net.
German highways: no adverts allowed.And... why should I allow advertisers space on my monitors?
I buy high-res systems because I need that, and see no sense in giving a good part of that away for some stuff aimed at morons...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475922</id>
	<title>Re:If you're as good at it as Google</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1261076040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that there is no deterministic way to determine what is and what is not a "peaceful, non-intrusive, text-only delivery system" so those of us using ad blockers invariably have regular expression rules that block any links with common advertising substrings such as "ads" in the URL. When people use ad blockers there is going to be "collateral damage", there is a reason why some call ad blockers "the nuclear plugins" after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that there is no deterministic way to determine what is and what is not a " peaceful , non-intrusive , text-only delivery system " so those of us using ad blockers invariably have regular expression rules that block any links with common advertising substrings such as " ads " in the URL .
When people use ad blockers there is going to be " collateral damage " , there is a reason why some call ad blockers " the nuclear plugins " after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that there is no deterministic way to determine what is and what is not a "peaceful, non-intrusive, text-only delivery system" so those of us using ad blockers invariably have regular expression rules that block any links with common advertising substrings such as "ads" in the URL.
When people use ad blockers there is going to be "collateral damage", there is a reason why some call ad blockers "the nuclear plugins" after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475352</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261073580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>all ads annoy me.  how often do you see a commercial for something you DONT know exists?  once a week?  out of those times how often is it something you say hey im going to go get that?  once a year?  i dont need to see a beer commercial, i know they exist.  if its a new brand, great<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but im still going to buy MY brand when i go to get some.  if its an advertisement for the beer i already drink, seeing the ad doesnt make me rush right out and buy beer sooner, either way serves no purpose.</p><p>i also tend to make a mental note of the more obnoxious ads, or ones i see WAY to often...you know, so i dont mistakenly buy their product, even if its cheaper than their competitor's version sitting right next to it on the shelf.  i dont watch tv cuz of the ads, i dont listen to radio cuz of the ads, i dont read magazines cuz of the ads, and i stray away from ad-heavy websites.  advertising ruins everything.  you know what rocks?  tivo.  ad blockers.  pirated content (srry, its true)  the only thing i hate worse than advertising is police/government.  dont get me started on THAT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>all ads annoy me .
how often do you see a commercial for something you DONT know exists ?
once a week ?
out of those times how often is it something you say hey im going to go get that ?
once a year ?
i dont need to see a beer commercial , i know they exist .
if its a new brand , great ... but im still going to buy MY brand when i go to get some .
if its an advertisement for the beer i already drink , seeing the ad doesnt make me rush right out and buy beer sooner , either way serves no purpose.i also tend to make a mental note of the more obnoxious ads , or ones i see WAY to often...you know , so i dont mistakenly buy their product , even if its cheaper than their competitor 's version sitting right next to it on the shelf .
i dont watch tv cuz of the ads , i dont listen to radio cuz of the ads , i dont read magazines cuz of the ads , and i stray away from ad-heavy websites .
advertising ruins everything .
you know what rocks ?
tivo. ad blockers .
pirated content ( srry , its true ) the only thing i hate worse than advertising is police/government .
dont get me started on THAT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all ads annoy me.
how often do you see a commercial for something you DONT know exists?
once a week?
out of those times how often is it something you say hey im going to go get that?
once a year?
i dont need to see a beer commercial, i know they exist.
if its a new brand, great ... but im still going to buy MY brand when i go to get some.
if its an advertisement for the beer i already drink, seeing the ad doesnt make me rush right out and buy beer sooner, either way serves no purpose.i also tend to make a mental note of the more obnoxious ads, or ones i see WAY to often...you know, so i dont mistakenly buy their product, even if its cheaper than their competitor's version sitting right next to it on the shelf.
i dont watch tv cuz of the ads, i dont listen to radio cuz of the ads, i dont read magazines cuz of the ads, and i stray away from ad-heavy websites.
advertising ruins everything.
you know what rocks?
tivo.  ad blockers.
pirated content (srry, its true)  the only thing i hate worse than advertising is police/government.
dont get me started on THAT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473494</id>
	<title>And to them I say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474610</id>
	<title>Re:Google Mind Trick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261070580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These aren't the ads I'm looking for...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are n't the ads I 'm looking for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These aren't the ads I'm looking for...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474130</id>
	<title>Re:Only geeks and nerds care about ad blockers</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1261068360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, who do you think helps when family / friends / whoever has computer problems?</p><p>Yea, it's those geeks. What do you think they will install first when they try to find a solution in the Internet to some technical problem? AdBlocking. Mandatory 10 seconds.</p><p>And people like it. They talk about it and others follow.</p><p>General demographic is catching up to ad-blocking very fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , who do you think helps when family / friends / whoever has computer problems ? Yea , it 's those geeks .
What do you think they will install first when they try to find a solution in the Internet to some technical problem ?
AdBlocking. Mandatory 10 seconds.And people like it .
They talk about it and others follow.General demographic is catching up to ad-blocking very fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, who do you think helps when family / friends / whoever has computer problems?Yea, it's those geeks.
What do you think they will install first when they try to find a solution in the Internet to some technical problem?
AdBlocking. Mandatory 10 seconds.And people like it.
They talk about it and others follow.General demographic is catching up to ad-blocking very fast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473654</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475086</id>
	<title>Re:Kick the Pig to Win an iPOD * FLASH * FLASH *</title>
	<author>Big Boss</author>
	<datestamp>1261072380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good points. I would also include that the ad server must send the entire ad within 100ms. Part of the reason I use adblock is so I'm not sitting there waiting for some ad server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good points .
I would also include that the ad server must send the entire ad within 100ms .
Part of the reason I use adblock is so I 'm not sitting there waiting for some ad server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good points.
I would also include that the ad server must send the entire ad within 100ms.
Part of the reason I use adblock is so I'm not sitting there waiting for some ad server.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474892</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261071660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easily. If I need a hammer and don't know hammers exist, I search for "buy tool to pound in nail" on Google and it tells me what options I have. In fact, this particular result tells me exactly what I need:</p><p>http://www.ehow.com/how\_4752116\_pound-nail-wood.html</p><p>In other words, you Google the function you need served and Google gives you options. Then you investigate those options and you buy one based on an informed decision.</p><p>Advertising was useful before search engines like Google existed. It's so last century. Get with the times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easily .
If I need a hammer and do n't know hammers exist , I search for " buy tool to pound in nail " on Google and it tells me what options I have .
In fact , this particular result tells me exactly what I need : http : //www.ehow.com/how \ _4752116 \ _pound-nail-wood.htmlIn other words , you Google the function you need served and Google gives you options .
Then you investigate those options and you buy one based on an informed decision.Advertising was useful before search engines like Google existed .
It 's so last century .
Get with the times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easily.
If I need a hammer and don't know hammers exist, I search for "buy tool to pound in nail" on Google and it tells me what options I have.
In fact, this particular result tells me exactly what I need:http://www.ehow.com/how\_4752116\_pound-nail-wood.htmlIn other words, you Google the function you need served and Google gives you options.
Then you investigate those options and you buy one based on an informed decision.Advertising was useful before search engines like Google existed.
It's so last century.
Get with the times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473580</id>
	<title>Umm...</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1261066440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how will users who have installed ad blocking software at some point realize that the ads <em>they are no longer seeing</em> aren't really that annoying anymore? I suppose what they actually meant to say was "buy text ads, ad blocking software will<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... perhaps<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... not block them" (sure it does).</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how will users who have installed ad blocking software at some point realize that the ads they are no longer seeing are n't really that annoying anymore ?
I suppose what they actually meant to say was " buy text ads , ad blocking software will ... perhaps ... not block them " ( sure it does ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how will users who have installed ad blocking software at some point realize that the ads they are no longer seeing aren't really that annoying anymore?
I suppose what they actually meant to say was "buy text ads, ad blocking software will ... perhaps ... not block them" (sure it does).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473846</id>
	<title>I'm glad Google has such a good sense of humor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hahaha!</p><p>whats that? they are being serious? well then allow me to laugh louder!</p><p>HAHAHAHAHA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hahaha ! whats that ?
they are being serious ?
well then allow me to laugh louder ! HAHAHAHAHA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hahaha!whats that?
they are being serious?
well then allow me to laugh louder!HAHAHAHAHA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474140</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>kemenaran</author>
	<datestamp>1261068360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then Flashblock with a good whitelist ? That's what I ended up with, instead of using AdBlock. Works pretty well, I must say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then Flashblock with a good whitelist ?
That 's what I ended up with , instead of using AdBlock .
Works pretty well , I must say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then Flashblock with a good whitelist ?
That's what I ended up with, instead of using AdBlock.
Works pretty well, I must say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473524</id>
	<title>If wishes were pennies...</title>
	<author>Aequitarum Custos</author>
	<datestamp>1261066200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>wait, Google is already rich.</htmltext>
<tokenext>wait , Google is already rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait, Google is already rich.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475406</id>
	<title>Re:Google Mind Trick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261073820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Mind Trick (beta)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Mind Trick ( beta )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Mind Trick (beta)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473590</id>
	<title>I can guarantee you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that I will never find online advertising to be a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that I will never find online advertising to be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that I will never find online advertising to be a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474256</id>
	<title>Re:And to them I say</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1261068960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno.   I think there's something to be said for looking at the problem in economic terms. Some people tune into the Superbowl to see the advertisements, after all, so that's a kind of exchange: entertainment for eyeballs.   I don't mind the advertisements in Google's search results because when I don't want them they don't intrude, but they're often useful enough that I click through before doing a new search. That's win-win for the advertisers and me.</p><p>The problem I think is with crude advertising methods from the era of old media.  The extreme difficulty of getting many high value impressions by old medial techniques means that if you want to scale your business, you've got to do it with a huge pile of low value impressions.  At some scale, the old media advertising game becomes about racking up sheer volume. Since there is no way of distinguishing good impressions from bad, and you *need* impressions, the guiding principle is that there is no such thing as a bad impression. Think of the difference between carpet bombing an entire city and having an agent stick a ricin tipped umbrella into your target as he strolls to work. The assassin is more effective period -- not to mention cost effective.  If the only weapons you have are unguided bombs, then no death in that city would be a "bad" one.</p><p>If the marginal benefit of the next thousand impressions is greater than their marginal cost, the advertiser will go for it.  What Google has done is increase the opportunity costs of going for unwanted impressions.  Why do that when you can find consumers who *want* your information?  If the process of giving *unwanted* impressions is harder, so much the better for me (and Google, whose business is built on a competing strategy).</p><p>Google's search result adverts are a good deal for me: information that is often useful at the price of a few square inches of monitor space for a few seconds.  That's the same strategy behind the advertising supported "free phone" idea.  Done in an old-media any-impression-is-a-good-one manner, it would be hideous.   Done in a way that is useful to me, I might not mind it so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno .
I think there 's something to be said for looking at the problem in economic terms .
Some people tune into the Superbowl to see the advertisements , after all , so that 's a kind of exchange : entertainment for eyeballs .
I do n't mind the advertisements in Google 's search results because when I do n't want them they do n't intrude , but they 're often useful enough that I click through before doing a new search .
That 's win-win for the advertisers and me.The problem I think is with crude advertising methods from the era of old media .
The extreme difficulty of getting many high value impressions by old medial techniques means that if you want to scale your business , you 've got to do it with a huge pile of low value impressions .
At some scale , the old media advertising game becomes about racking up sheer volume .
Since there is no way of distinguishing good impressions from bad , and you * need * impressions , the guiding principle is that there is no such thing as a bad impression .
Think of the difference between carpet bombing an entire city and having an agent stick a ricin tipped umbrella into your target as he strolls to work .
The assassin is more effective period -- not to mention cost effective .
If the only weapons you have are unguided bombs , then no death in that city would be a " bad " one.If the marginal benefit of the next thousand impressions is greater than their marginal cost , the advertiser will go for it .
What Google has done is increase the opportunity costs of going for unwanted impressions .
Why do that when you can find consumers who * want * your information ?
If the process of giving * unwanted * impressions is harder , so much the better for me ( and Google , whose business is built on a competing strategy ) .Google 's search result adverts are a good deal for me : information that is often useful at the price of a few square inches of monitor space for a few seconds .
That 's the same strategy behind the advertising supported " free phone " idea .
Done in an old-media any-impression-is-a-good-one manner , it would be hideous .
Done in a way that is useful to me , I might not mind it so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno.
I think there's something to be said for looking at the problem in economic terms.
Some people tune into the Superbowl to see the advertisements, after all, so that's a kind of exchange: entertainment for eyeballs.
I don't mind the advertisements in Google's search results because when I don't want them they don't intrude, but they're often useful enough that I click through before doing a new search.
That's win-win for the advertisers and me.The problem I think is with crude advertising methods from the era of old media.
The extreme difficulty of getting many high value impressions by old medial techniques means that if you want to scale your business, you've got to do it with a huge pile of low value impressions.
At some scale, the old media advertising game becomes about racking up sheer volume.
Since there is no way of distinguishing good impressions from bad, and you *need* impressions, the guiding principle is that there is no such thing as a bad impression.
Think of the difference between carpet bombing an entire city and having an agent stick a ricin tipped umbrella into your target as he strolls to work.
The assassin is more effective period -- not to mention cost effective.
If the only weapons you have are unguided bombs, then no death in that city would be a "bad" one.If the marginal benefit of the next thousand impressions is greater than their marginal cost, the advertiser will go for it.
What Google has done is increase the opportunity costs of going for unwanted impressions.
Why do that when you can find consumers who *want* your information?
If the process of giving *unwanted* impressions is harder, so much the better for me (and Google, whose business is built on a competing strategy).Google's search result adverts are a good deal for me: information that is often useful at the price of a few square inches of monitor space for a few seconds.
That's the same strategy behind the advertising supported "free phone" idea.
Done in an old-media any-impression-is-a-good-one manner, it would be hideous.
Done in a way that is useful to me, I might not mind it so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475024</id>
	<title>Re:Umm...</title>
	<author>Rigrig</author>
	<datestamp>1261072080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got Adblock installed, but disabled for most sites I frequently visit: If I like a site I figure I'll give them a shot at making some money by showing me their ads.<br>Usually it turns out their ads aren't that obtrusive, so they actually make some money from my visits, and I get to feel good for making them a little money, and the knowledge that I'm visiting a site that picks sane advertisements.<br>Then again, sometimes it seems like people have gone and had a long thought on how to really annoy visitors with their ads (floating divs, ads disguised as articles, ads inserted before flash clips, etc), in which case too bad for them, but I don't mind risking a few seconds of my time for sites I like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got Adblock installed , but disabled for most sites I frequently visit : If I like a site I figure I 'll give them a shot at making some money by showing me their ads.Usually it turns out their ads are n't that obtrusive , so they actually make some money from my visits , and I get to feel good for making them a little money , and the knowledge that I 'm visiting a site that picks sane advertisements.Then again , sometimes it seems like people have gone and had a long thought on how to really annoy visitors with their ads ( floating divs , ads disguised as articles , ads inserted before flash clips , etc ) , in which case too bad for them , but I do n't mind risking a few seconds of my time for sites I like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got Adblock installed, but disabled for most sites I frequently visit: If I like a site I figure I'll give them a shot at making some money by showing me their ads.Usually it turns out their ads aren't that obtrusive, so they actually make some money from my visits, and I get to feel good for making them a little money, and the knowledge that I'm visiting a site that picks sane advertisements.Then again, sometimes it seems like people have gone and had a long thought on how to really annoy visitors with their ads (floating divs, ads disguised as articles, ads inserted before flash clips, etc), in which case too bad for them, but I don't mind risking a few seconds of my time for sites I like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474910</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>pitdingo</author>
	<datestamp>1261071720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if i don't know about it, then i don't care about it. Precisely the parents point.  If i want something i will seek it out. You have to be stupid to buy stuff based on advertising</htmltext>
<tokenext>if i do n't know about it , then i do n't care about it .
Precisely the parents point .
If i want something i will seek it out .
You have to be stupid to buy stuff based on advertising</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if i don't know about it, then i don't care about it.
Precisely the parents point.
If i want something i will seek it out.
You have to be stupid to buy stuff based on advertising</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475100</id>
	<title>Old behavioral experiment</title>
	<author>PontifexPrimus</author>
	<datestamp>1261072380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's an old behavioral psychology experiment that seems to fit the situation:<br>
To train a horse to lift one of its front legs whenever a bell rings, you start out with a piece floor that can be partially electrified to deliver a mild shock. You ring the bell, you deliver the shock. After a while the horse learns that to avoid discomfort it needs to raise its leg. It lifts the leg - no pain.<br>
Now comes the tricky part: after a while you remove the shocking floor. Now the horse will <em>still</em> lift its leg whenever the bell sounds; and what's more, this behavior will even become stronger and stronger ingrained, since there is no more punishment and the "correct" behavior is re-inforced.<br>
Now assume that instead of a horse there is a user, replace the electric shock with annoyance inflicted by ads and the act of lifting the front leg with using adblocking software. This means that in order to overcome the strong aversion of adblock users you have to offer a very, very high incentive and strong proof that reverting to the old browsing habits will not be punished by more annoying ads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an old behavioral psychology experiment that seems to fit the situation : To train a horse to lift one of its front legs whenever a bell rings , you start out with a piece floor that can be partially electrified to deliver a mild shock .
You ring the bell , you deliver the shock .
After a while the horse learns that to avoid discomfort it needs to raise its leg .
It lifts the leg - no pain .
Now comes the tricky part : after a while you remove the shocking floor .
Now the horse will still lift its leg whenever the bell sounds ; and what 's more , this behavior will even become stronger and stronger ingrained , since there is no more punishment and the " correct " behavior is re-inforced .
Now assume that instead of a horse there is a user , replace the electric shock with annoyance inflicted by ads and the act of lifting the front leg with using adblocking software .
This means that in order to overcome the strong aversion of adblock users you have to offer a very , very high incentive and strong proof that reverting to the old browsing habits will not be punished by more annoying ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an old behavioral psychology experiment that seems to fit the situation:
To train a horse to lift one of its front legs whenever a bell rings, you start out with a piece floor that can be partially electrified to deliver a mild shock.
You ring the bell, you deliver the shock.
After a while the horse learns that to avoid discomfort it needs to raise its leg.
It lifts the leg - no pain.
Now comes the tricky part: after a while you remove the shocking floor.
Now the horse will still lift its leg whenever the bell sounds; and what's more, this behavior will even become stronger and stronger ingrained, since there is no more punishment and the "correct" behavior is re-inforced.
Now assume that instead of a horse there is a user, replace the electric shock with annoyance inflicted by ads and the act of lifting the front leg with using adblocking software.
This means that in order to overcome the strong aversion of adblock users you have to offer a very, very high incentive and strong proof that reverting to the old browsing habits will not be punished by more annoying ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473534</id>
	<title>You underestimate the Jews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jews are responsible for TV commercials being double the volume of the shows that they air with. Do you really think that internet commercials are going to be <i>less</i> annoying in the future, when the Jews bring their villainy to the internet?</p><p>Dream on. As long as there are Jews, there will need to be ad-blocking technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jews are responsible for TV commercials being double the volume of the shows that they air with .
Do you really think that internet commercials are going to be less annoying in the future , when the Jews bring their villainy to the internet ? Dream on .
As long as there are Jews , there will need to be ad-blocking technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jews are responsible for TV commercials being double the volume of the shows that they air with.
Do you really think that internet commercials are going to be less annoying in the future, when the Jews bring their villainy to the internet?Dream on.
As long as there are Jews, there will need to be ad-blocking technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474920</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Stepnsteph</author>
	<datestamp>1261071720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right.  Exactly.  Personally I used to be anti-Ad Block Plus (I may have posted such a comment here quite a long time ago, actually). Even I broke down and got ABP eventually.</p><p>It's not that I didn't try, it's just that it became more and more laborious to individually block the offending ads. Obvious cycle is obvious, right? People use ad block, causing services turn to the irritating ads in some desperate act thus causing more people to begin using ad blockers. The problem is that ABP is a nuke, and I can't be arsed to go individually picking through them anymore.</p><p>On the bright side I've found that Element Hiding Helper is useful for blocking "features" of a website that aren't ads but that I find to be irritating or useless (I'm looking at you, Youtube).</p><p>Chrome is a fine browser in so far as performance (aside from that whole tracking thing).  I'd use it - or more likely <a href="htp:wwwsrwarenetensoftwaresrwareironphp" title="htp" rel="nofollow">SRWare Iron</a> [htp] - if it had ABP and X-Marks, and preferably some anti-tracking add-ons as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right .
Exactly. Personally I used to be anti-Ad Block Plus ( I may have posted such a comment here quite a long time ago , actually ) .
Even I broke down and got ABP eventually.It 's not that I did n't try , it 's just that it became more and more laborious to individually block the offending ads .
Obvious cycle is obvious , right ?
People use ad block , causing services turn to the irritating ads in some desperate act thus causing more people to begin using ad blockers .
The problem is that ABP is a nuke , and I ca n't be arsed to go individually picking through them anymore.On the bright side I 've found that Element Hiding Helper is useful for blocking " features " of a website that are n't ads but that I find to be irritating or useless ( I 'm looking at you , Youtube ) .Chrome is a fine browser in so far as performance ( aside from that whole tracking thing ) .
I 'd use it - or more likely SRWare Iron [ htp ] - if it had ABP and X-Marks , and preferably some anti-tracking add-ons as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right.
Exactly.  Personally I used to be anti-Ad Block Plus (I may have posted such a comment here quite a long time ago, actually).
Even I broke down and got ABP eventually.It's not that I didn't try, it's just that it became more and more laborious to individually block the offending ads.
Obvious cycle is obvious, right?
People use ad block, causing services turn to the irritating ads in some desperate act thus causing more people to begin using ad blockers.
The problem is that ABP is a nuke, and I can't be arsed to go individually picking through them anymore.On the bright side I've found that Element Hiding Helper is useful for blocking "features" of a website that aren't ads but that I find to be irritating or useless (I'm looking at you, Youtube).Chrome is a fine browser in so far as performance (aside from that whole tracking thing).
I'd use it - or more likely SRWare Iron [htp] - if it had ABP and X-Marks, and preferably some anti-tracking add-ons as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473610</id>
	<title>Google can survive them</title>
	<author>cowboy76Spain</author>
	<datestamp>1261066500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the point here is that ad blockers will have more impact in the less sofisticated ads (popups and the like). Probably Google thinks that it has the muscle to get its ads in a way that won't suffer as much. Either as they are less intrusive so less people is likely to try hard to get rid of them, or because they have technological ways of distributing the ad that make much harder to dismiss it without breaking the page that the users wanted to see. Or both of these reasons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the point here is that ad blockers will have more impact in the less sofisticated ads ( popups and the like ) .
Probably Google thinks that it has the muscle to get its ads in a way that wo n't suffer as much .
Either as they are less intrusive so less people is likely to try hard to get rid of them , or because they have technological ways of distributing the ad that make much harder to dismiss it without breaking the page that the users wanted to see .
Or both of these reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the point here is that ad blockers will have more impact in the less sofisticated ads (popups and the like).
Probably Google thinks that it has the muscle to get its ads in a way that won't suffer as much.
Either as they are less intrusive so less people is likely to try hard to get rid of them, or because they have technological ways of distributing the ad that make much harder to dismiss it without breaking the page that the users wanted to see.
Or both of these reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1261067100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most people are OK with Ad's on some level... just not OK with obnoxious popup-type invasive ads that even crash your browser sometimes.<br>
The solution is an ad-blocker with level-based blocklist like this:<br>
- Allow only text ads (this is where google wins)<br>
- Allow simple image ads (not larger than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)<br>
- Allow animated image ads<br>
- Allow movie and interactive ads (flash ads)<br>
- Allow all terrible ads (never use this ad)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people are OK with Ad 's on some level... just not OK with obnoxious popup-type invasive ads that even crash your browser sometimes .
The solution is an ad-blocker with level-based blocklist like this : - Allow only text ads ( this is where google wins ) - Allow simple image ads ( not larger than ... ) - Allow animated image ads - Allow movie and interactive ads ( flash ads ) - Allow all terrible ads ( never use this ad )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people are OK with Ad's on some level... just not OK with obnoxious popup-type invasive ads that even crash your browser sometimes.
The solution is an ad-blocker with level-based blocklist like this:
- Allow only text ads (this is where google wins)
- Allow simple image ads (not larger than ...)
- Allow animated image ads
- Allow movie and interactive ads (flash ads)
- Allow all terrible ads (never use this ad)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475158</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1261072680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The other function of advertising is--once awareness of the product is established, like with Coke and Pepis--to make the specific brand foremost in your mind. We don't like to admit it, but we as a whole group we're subject to the mechanics of our biology; repitition bumps the product to the top of our awareness queue. If you see 1000 ads for Coke and 1 ad for Fentime's, you'll go for the Coke if you don't already have a strong preference for the other brand.
</p><p>
Also, you get a brand cold war going. Once the top two brands establish a level of advertising, one of them can't drop their levels without giving the other brand an advantage. And for something like Coke and Pepsi where there's no real difference but brand loyalty, that's critical.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other function of advertising is--once awareness of the product is established , like with Coke and Pepis--to make the specific brand foremost in your mind .
We do n't like to admit it , but we as a whole group we 're subject to the mechanics of our biology ; repitition bumps the product to the top of our awareness queue .
If you see 1000 ads for Coke and 1 ad for Fentime 's , you 'll go for the Coke if you do n't already have a strong preference for the other brand .
Also , you get a brand cold war going .
Once the top two brands establish a level of advertising , one of them ca n't drop their levels without giving the other brand an advantage .
And for something like Coke and Pepsi where there 's no real difference but brand loyalty , that 's critical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The other function of advertising is--once awareness of the product is established, like with Coke and Pepis--to make the specific brand foremost in your mind.
We don't like to admit it, but we as a whole group we're subject to the mechanics of our biology; repitition bumps the product to the top of our awareness queue.
If you see 1000 ads for Coke and 1 ad for Fentime's, you'll go for the Coke if you don't already have a strong preference for the other brand.
Also, you get a brand cold war going.
Once the top two brands establish a level of advertising, one of them can't drop their levels without giving the other brand an advantage.
And for something like Coke and Pepsi where there's no real difference but brand loyalty, that's critical.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30512518</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>pitje</author>
	<datestamp>1261413480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always thought I needed something I didn't know existed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always thought I needed something I did n't know existed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always thought I needed something I didn't know existed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475846</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1261075680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>
If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google. The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.
</i>
</p><p>
Even from an advertiser perspective, Google's system sucks.  On the forums for "search engine optimization", one discovers that ad clicks from Google search results tend to result in sales, while ad clicks from Google ads on non-Google sites (what Google euphemistically calls the "Google Content Network") don't.  50\% of ad clicks come from 10\% of the user base, and that 10\% doesn't buy anything.
</p><p>
Google ads on non-search pages aren't that valuable to advertisers.  So why are there so many of them?  Because they're opt-out for the advertiser.
Many Google advertisers have ads on the "content network" only because they haven't found the <a href="http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/AdWords/thread?tid=2b2c5c9f0ee945b2&amp;hl=en" title="google.com">hidden button on Google's screens for opting out</a> [google.com], as an unhappy Google advertiser reports: "I am running many Google ads and their CTR is around 10\%-15\% for search page impressions; However the CTR on the content network is 0.02\%! I can exclude my ads appearing on certain sites however at the bottom of the URL list it states "Other Domains" which have a total CTR of 0.01\% with well over 300,000 impressions in a month! This is driving my overall CTR down massively! If I can not view these sites and choose to exclude them...I need to opt out of all content based placements immediately. How can I do this?"
</p><p>Also see <a href="http://www.wilsonweb.com/paid-search/goodman-content-network.htm" title="wilsonweb.com">"Good Reasons to Avoid Content Targeting:</a> [wilsonweb.com] "The AdWords user interface misleads new advertisers. Industry consensus suggests that content targeting ought to be used selectively and one should bid lower on content than on search inventory. This is because ads on content inventory tend to convert at a lower rate than ads on search inventory. But when you walk through Google's campaign setup, you find that you've been automatically opted into the content network <b>at the same high bid as your search campaigns</b>."
</p><p>
Much of the "bottom feeder" problem on the Web comes from this one trick of Google's.
</p><p>
We measure some of this at SiteTruth, and some of the results are <a href="http://www.sitetruth.net/" title="sitetruth.net">here.</a> [sitetruth.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I need " product information " , I will find it - ironically - on Google .
The difference is that I 'll be looking for it , instead of getting it shoved down my throat , willingly or otherwise .
Even from an advertiser perspective , Google 's system sucks .
On the forums for " search engine optimization " , one discovers that ad clicks from Google search results tend to result in sales , while ad clicks from Google ads on non-Google sites ( what Google euphemistically calls the " Google Content Network " ) do n't .
50 \ % of ad clicks come from 10 \ % of the user base , and that 10 \ % does n't buy anything .
Google ads on non-search pages are n't that valuable to advertisers .
So why are there so many of them ?
Because they 're opt-out for the advertiser .
Many Google advertisers have ads on the " content network " only because they have n't found the hidden button on Google 's screens for opting out [ google.com ] , as an unhappy Google advertiser reports : " I am running many Google ads and their CTR is around 10 \ % -15 \ % for search page impressions ; However the CTR on the content network is 0.02 \ % !
I can exclude my ads appearing on certain sites however at the bottom of the URL list it states " Other Domains " which have a total CTR of 0.01 \ % with well over 300,000 impressions in a month !
This is driving my overall CTR down massively !
If I can not view these sites and choose to exclude them...I need to opt out of all content based placements immediately .
How can I do this ?
" Also see " Good Reasons to Avoid Content Targeting : [ wilsonweb.com ] " The AdWords user interface misleads new advertisers .
Industry consensus suggests that content targeting ought to be used selectively and one should bid lower on content than on search inventory .
This is because ads on content inventory tend to convert at a lower rate than ads on search inventory .
But when you walk through Google 's campaign setup , you find that you 've been automatically opted into the content network at the same high bid as your search campaigns .
" Much of the " bottom feeder " problem on the Web comes from this one trick of Google 's .
We measure some of this at SiteTruth , and some of the results are here .
[ sitetruth.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google.
The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.
Even from an advertiser perspective, Google's system sucks.
On the forums for "search engine optimization", one discovers that ad clicks from Google search results tend to result in sales, while ad clicks from Google ads on non-Google sites (what Google euphemistically calls the "Google Content Network") don't.
50\% of ad clicks come from 10\% of the user base, and that 10\% doesn't buy anything.
Google ads on non-search pages aren't that valuable to advertisers.
So why are there so many of them?
Because they're opt-out for the advertiser.
Many Google advertisers have ads on the "content network" only because they haven't found the hidden button on Google's screens for opting out [google.com], as an unhappy Google advertiser reports: "I am running many Google ads and their CTR is around 10\%-15\% for search page impressions; However the CTR on the content network is 0.02\%!
I can exclude my ads appearing on certain sites however at the bottom of the URL list it states "Other Domains" which have a total CTR of 0.01\% with well over 300,000 impressions in a month!
This is driving my overall CTR down massively!
If I can not view these sites and choose to exclude them...I need to opt out of all content based placements immediately.
How can I do this?
"
Also see "Good Reasons to Avoid Content Targeting: [wilsonweb.com] "The AdWords user interface misleads new advertisers.
Industry consensus suggests that content targeting ought to be used selectively and one should bid lower on content than on search inventory.
This is because ads on content inventory tend to convert at a lower rate than ads on search inventory.
But when you walk through Google's campaign setup, you find that you've been automatically opted into the content network at the same high bid as your search campaigns.
"

Much of the "bottom feeder" problem on the Web comes from this one trick of Google's.
We measure some of this at SiteTruth, and some of the results are here.
[sitetruth.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473576</id>
	<title>If you're as good at it as Google</title>
	<author>Silentknyght</author>
	<datestamp>1261066380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're as good at it as Google, if you, too, can delivery such customer-specific advertising in a peaceful, non-intrusive, text-only delivery system, then yes, you too will have no reason to worry about ad-blocking extensions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're as good at it as Google , if you , too , can delivery such customer-specific advertising in a peaceful , non-intrusive , text-only delivery system , then yes , you too will have no reason to worry about ad-blocking extensions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're as good at it as Google, if you, too, can delivery such customer-specific advertising in a peaceful, non-intrusive, text-only delivery system, then yes, you too will have no reason to worry about ad-blocking extensions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30479528</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1261045860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it's not so much a function of telling people about a product or service that they didn't know existed, but rather one of convincing people that they need a product they didn't know they needed.  It's a subtle but important difference.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it 's not so much a function of telling people about a product or service that they did n't know existed , but rather one of convincing people that they need a product they did n't know they needed .
It 's a subtle but important difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it's not so much a function of telling people about a product or service that they didn't know existed, but rather one of convincing people that they need a product they didn't know they needed.
It's a subtle but important difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477028</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261080120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm okay with ads... as long as they PAY ME the cost to download the content, and roughly 2 grand for 30 seconds of my time to read them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm okay with ads... as long as they PAY ME the cost to download the content , and roughly 2 grand for 30 seconds of my time to read them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm okay with ads... as long as they PAY ME the cost to download the content, and roughly 2 grand for 30 seconds of my time to read them...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477520</id>
	<title>Re:You underestimate the Jews</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1261081920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what the fuck is this bull shit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what the fuck is this bull shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what the fuck is this bull shit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473654</id>
	<title>Only geeks and nerds care about ad blockers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and they're already excluded from the intended demographic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and they 're already excluded from the intended demographic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and they're already excluded from the intended demographic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474988</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261072020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the same time you are rude enough yourself to leech the web information for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the same time you are rude enough yourself to leech the web information for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the same time you are rude enough yourself to leech the web information for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473984</id>
	<title>Not even google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ads might be text-only, but they are rendered with reams and reams of Javascript, which I have blocked.<br>However targeted an ad is, it's by definition not what I'm looking for because it's an ad.</p><p>Under my ad-blocker, all are equal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ads might be text-only , but they are rendered with reams and reams of Javascript , which I have blocked.However targeted an ad is , it 's by definition not what I 'm looking for because it 's an ad.Under my ad-blocker , all are equal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ads might be text-only, but they are rendered with reams and reams of Javascript, which I have blocked.However targeted an ad is, it's by definition not what I'm looking for because it's an ad.Under my ad-blocker, all are equal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473596</id>
	<title>Google Mind Trick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>[glazing over]
<br> <br>
yes, ads are a good thing.
<br> <br>
I like ads.
<br> <br>
They make me happy.
<br> <br>
I want to click.
<br> <br>
[snapping out of it]
<br> <br>
What? Damned Jedi^H^H^H^HGoogle Mind Trick&reg;</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ glazing over ] yes , ads are a good thing .
I like ads .
They make me happy .
I want to click .
[ snapping out of it ] What ?
Damned Jedi ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ HGoogle Mind Trick  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>[glazing over]
 
yes, ads are a good thing.
I like ads.
They make me happy.
I want to click.
[snapping out of it]
 
What?
Damned Jedi^H^H^H^HGoogle Mind Trick®</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474386</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Alascom</author>
	<datestamp>1261069440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and when you do go looking for it, those little ad boxes on the right come in real handy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and when you do go looking for it , those little ad boxes on the right come in real handy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and when you do go looking for it, those little ad boxes on the right come in real handy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473900</id>
	<title>Ads not acceptable if we pay for bandwidth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the ISP's pushing to get us to pay for every bit of data there is no way I am going to let any page I visit load every element without me giving it permission.</p><p>Page text 2k.<br>Page images 4 x 50k = 200k</p><p>Ad to text ratio  100:1. Sorry not a good idea.</p><p>Also page rendering time is a function of the size of the page elements. A snappy page usually has very few ad images.</p><p>If they can make the ads low bandwidth and not add a load to the page rendering and not annoying people might accept them. The odds of that are very low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the ISP 's pushing to get us to pay for every bit of data there is no way I am going to let any page I visit load every element without me giving it permission.Page text 2k.Page images 4 x 50k = 200kAd to text ratio 100 : 1 .
Sorry not a good idea.Also page rendering time is a function of the size of the page elements .
A snappy page usually has very few ad images.If they can make the ads low bandwidth and not add a load to the page rendering and not annoying people might accept them .
The odds of that are very low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the ISP's pushing to get us to pay for every bit of data there is no way I am going to let any page I visit load every element without me giving it permission.Page text 2k.Page images 4 x 50k = 200kAd to text ratio  100:1.
Sorry not a good idea.Also page rendering time is a function of the size of the page elements.
A snappy page usually has very few ad images.If they can make the ads low bandwidth and not add a load to the page rendering and not annoying people might accept them.
The odds of that are very low.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474902</id>
	<title>2009 was the relaunch of the internet ad</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1261071720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pop-up blocker used to be good enough.  Not anymore.</p><p>This year, specifically the last 6 months, ads have been rethought and changed, often hijacked the browsing experience in a way a pop-up block just can't help.</p><p>I often watch a video, like the daily show, and now there is a 30 second advertising in the beginning of it.  No way to get around it.  Not relevant to my interests.  And if I watch it multiple times it's the same thing, over and over again.  And is a 45 second clip worth a 30 second ad?  Probably not.</p><p>Many articles, despite being littered with ads, now also have an advert that blocks the entire page until you view it for 30 seconds or hit "skip the ad" (who knows how long that will be voluntary).</p><p>Pandora, an excellent service, really started pushing the ads.  Now, I could upgrade for $36 a year (didn't it used to be $29?) and that's all fine and good, but I could let a string of decent/good songs play on it ad free, but as soon as thumb-down a piece of music, which I do at least 50\% of the time, they play an ad.  Not really giving them an incentive to play my tastes now, does it, when they get rewarded with advertising for playing all the wrong songs.</p><p>Youtube really has stumbled on something elegant recently, with the music videos and AMVs and fanmade music videos recently.  Sometime this year, they silenced all the things that had infringing content - in conjunction with the RIAA.  It played the video, but had no sound.  But apparently youtube acquired or is using something like Shazam, to listen to the clips and link it to the relevant music piece.  Now almost every music video or AMV or whatnot has a transparent bar on the bottom that lets you buy that exact piece of music automatically from amazon or itunes - truly an elegant and helpful system, advertising exactly as it should be.  Youtube makes a few cents, music makes it's money, the people putting together the AMVs are happy, and the audience is served.</p><p>I really have to hand it to youtube here.  But the rise in unavoidable and intrusive ads otherwise has me shiver about the future of the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pop-up blocker used to be good enough .
Not anymore.This year , specifically the last 6 months , ads have been rethought and changed , often hijacked the browsing experience in a way a pop-up block just ca n't help.I often watch a video , like the daily show , and now there is a 30 second advertising in the beginning of it .
No way to get around it .
Not relevant to my interests .
And if I watch it multiple times it 's the same thing , over and over again .
And is a 45 second clip worth a 30 second ad ?
Probably not.Many articles , despite being littered with ads , now also have an advert that blocks the entire page until you view it for 30 seconds or hit " skip the ad " ( who knows how long that will be voluntary ) .Pandora , an excellent service , really started pushing the ads .
Now , I could upgrade for $ 36 a year ( did n't it used to be $ 29 ?
) and that 's all fine and good , but I could let a string of decent/good songs play on it ad free , but as soon as thumb-down a piece of music , which I do at least 50 \ % of the time , they play an ad .
Not really giving them an incentive to play my tastes now , does it , when they get rewarded with advertising for playing all the wrong songs.Youtube really has stumbled on something elegant recently , with the music videos and AMVs and fanmade music videos recently .
Sometime this year , they silenced all the things that had infringing content - in conjunction with the RIAA .
It played the video , but had no sound .
But apparently youtube acquired or is using something like Shazam , to listen to the clips and link it to the relevant music piece .
Now almost every music video or AMV or whatnot has a transparent bar on the bottom that lets you buy that exact piece of music automatically from amazon or itunes - truly an elegant and helpful system , advertising exactly as it should be .
Youtube makes a few cents , music makes it 's money , the people putting together the AMVs are happy , and the audience is served.I really have to hand it to youtube here .
But the rise in unavoidable and intrusive ads otherwise has me shiver about the future of the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pop-up blocker used to be good enough.
Not anymore.This year, specifically the last 6 months, ads have been rethought and changed, often hijacked the browsing experience in a way a pop-up block just can't help.I often watch a video, like the daily show, and now there is a 30 second advertising in the beginning of it.
No way to get around it.
Not relevant to my interests.
And if I watch it multiple times it's the same thing, over and over again.
And is a 45 second clip worth a 30 second ad?
Probably not.Many articles, despite being littered with ads, now also have an advert that blocks the entire page until you view it for 30 seconds or hit "skip the ad" (who knows how long that will be voluntary).Pandora, an excellent service, really started pushing the ads.
Now, I could upgrade for $36 a year (didn't it used to be $29?
) and that's all fine and good, but I could let a string of decent/good songs play on it ad free, but as soon as thumb-down a piece of music, which I do at least 50\% of the time, they play an ad.
Not really giving them an incentive to play my tastes now, does it, when they get rewarded with advertising for playing all the wrong songs.Youtube really has stumbled on something elegant recently, with the music videos and AMVs and fanmade music videos recently.
Sometime this year, they silenced all the things that had infringing content - in conjunction with the RIAA.
It played the video, but had no sound.
But apparently youtube acquired or is using something like Shazam, to listen to the clips and link it to the relevant music piece.
Now almost every music video or AMV or whatnot has a transparent bar on the bottom that lets you buy that exact piece of music automatically from amazon or itunes - truly an elegant and helpful system, advertising exactly as it should be.
Youtube makes a few cents, music makes it's money, the people putting together the AMVs are happy, and the audience is served.I really have to hand it to youtube here.
But the rise in unavoidable and intrusive ads otherwise has me shiver about the future of the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476588</id>
	<title>attention advertisers !!!</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1261078620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the adverts weren't so annoying, then we wouldn't have to go to such trouble to suppress them. The most annoying is the audio ones that pop up in the middle of a new report, when are you advertisers going to ever learn. The INTERNET isn't like TELEVISION !!!</p><p>Secondly, when we arrive at a web site selling, for instance, contact lenses, we don't want to watch an advert, we want to know: do you carry our prescription and HOW MUCH DOES IT COST, that is all !!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the adverts were n't so annoying , then we would n't have to go to such trouble to suppress them .
The most annoying is the audio ones that pop up in the middle of a new report , when are you advertisers going to ever learn .
The INTERNET is n't like TELEVISION ! !
! Secondly , when we arrive at a web site selling , for instance , contact lenses , we do n't want to watch an advert , we want to know : do you carry our prescription and HOW MUCH DOES IT COST , that is all ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the adverts weren't so annoying, then we wouldn't have to go to such trouble to suppress them.
The most annoying is the audio ones that pop up in the middle of a new report, when are you advertisers going to ever learn.
The INTERNET isn't like TELEVISION !!
!Secondly, when we arrive at a web site selling, for instance, contact lenses, we don't want to watch an advert, we want to know: do you carry our prescription and HOW MUCH DOES IT COST, that is all !!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478526</id>
	<title>Re:The very next useful ad I see...</title>
	<author>patrickthbold</author>
	<datestamp>1261042380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone once told me that the main reason that advertising works is because people don't think it does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone once told me that the main reason that advertising works is because people do n't think it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone once told me that the main reason that advertising works is because people don't think it does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473764</id>
	<title>Re:I can guarantee you</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1261067040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I run with no script active, That catches most of the annoying ads. I usually ignore the rest unless its something very specific I like, for instance RPG ads served at enWorld. Ads on the internet don't really bother me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I run with no script active , That catches most of the annoying ads .
I usually ignore the rest unless its something very specific I like , for instance RPG ads served at enWorld .
Ads on the internet do n't really bother me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run with no script active, That catches most of the annoying ads.
I usually ignore the rest unless its something very specific I like, for instance RPG ads served at enWorld.
Ads on the internet don't really bother me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478194</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261040940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, if people advertised stuff I was interested in and I didn't think it was a scam, I would actually *like* ads. For example, I'm a magician, if I'm looking at some magic site, and they link to some product from another magic shop, or some book from an online retailer, I will eagerly follow the link. I like clicking on shared links in sites. However, the majority of web advertising right now is annoying, loud, obnoxious, sometimes disturbing ads for things I don't want when I don't want them, and they look like scams anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if people advertised stuff I was interested in and I did n't think it was a scam , I would actually * like * ads .
For example , I 'm a magician , if I 'm looking at some magic site , and they link to some product from another magic shop , or some book from an online retailer , I will eagerly follow the link .
I like clicking on shared links in sites .
However , the majority of web advertising right now is annoying , loud , obnoxious , sometimes disturbing ads for things I do n't want when I do n't want them , and they look like scams anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, if people advertised stuff I was interested in and I didn't think it was a scam, I would actually *like* ads.
For example, I'm a magician, if I'm looking at some magic site, and they link to some product from another magic shop, or some book from an online retailer, I will eagerly follow the link.
I like clicking on shared links in sites.
However, the majority of web advertising right now is annoying, loud, obnoxious, sometimes disturbing ads for things I don't want when I don't want them, and they look like scams anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475172</id>
	<title>Re:Umm...</title>
	<author>pipatron</author>
	<datestamp>1261072800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the websites who decided to take in the obnoxious ads should have thought about that. It's probably easier to lose a customer than to get a new one?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the websites who decided to take in the obnoxious ads should have thought about that .
It 's probably easier to lose a customer than to get a new one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the websites who decided to take in the obnoxious ads should have thought about that.
It's probably easier to lose a customer than to get a new one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476098</id>
	<title>Re:Ads? What ads?</title>
	<author>jackal40</author>
	<datestamp>1261076880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't remember the last time I saw an online ad from my computer at home. Now if work would let me install Firefox I'd be able to say Ads? What ads?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't remember the last time I saw an online ad from my computer at home .
Now if work would let me install Firefox I 'd be able to say Ads ?
What ads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't remember the last time I saw an online ad from my computer at home.
Now if work would let me install Firefox I'd be able to say Ads?
What ads?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475550</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>yivi</author>
	<datestamp>1261074420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, I browse<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. with sigs disabled/hidden, so I had missed the Lemura Skies thing. Because you mentioned it I had to do a search to see what the fuzz was about.</p><p>Because of you, there is tab back there with who knows what kind of result. And I'm afraid to go to that tab, and at the same time I really, really want to.</p><p>I fear I'll be disappointed though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , I browse / .
with sigs disabled/hidden , so I had missed the Lemura Skies thing .
Because you mentioned it I had to do a search to see what the fuzz was about.Because of you , there is tab back there with who knows what kind of result .
And I 'm afraid to go to that tab , and at the same time I really , really want to.I fear I 'll be disappointed though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, I browse /.
with sigs disabled/hidden, so I had missed the Lemura Skies thing.
Because you mentioned it I had to do a search to see what the fuzz was about.Because of you, there is tab back there with who knows what kind of result.
And I'm afraid to go to that tab, and at the same time I really, really want to.I fear I'll be disappointed though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473774</id>
	<title>They're a response to a problem.</title>
	<author>Dorkmaster Flek</author>
	<datestamp>1261067040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These companies don't seem to realize that ad blockers came about because the ads themselves because increasingly annoying and intrusive.  If advertisers played nice and didn't piss people off (ha, right) then we wouldn't need to use ad blockers just to make our browsing experience pleasant again.  I don't know anybody who actually <i>likes</i> ads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These companies do n't seem to realize that ad blockers came about because the ads themselves because increasingly annoying and intrusive .
If advertisers played nice and did n't piss people off ( ha , right ) then we would n't need to use ad blockers just to make our browsing experience pleasant again .
I do n't know anybody who actually likes ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These companies don't seem to realize that ad blockers came about because the ads themselves because increasingly annoying and intrusive.
If advertisers played nice and didn't piss people off (ha, right) then we wouldn't need to use ad blockers just to make our browsing experience pleasant again.
I don't know anybody who actually likes ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261068240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How, precisely, are you supposed to search for something that don't know exists? This is the primary function of advertising as a concept, (though not the primary function of the ads that I'm sure annoy you).</htmltext>
<tokenext>How , precisely , are you supposed to search for something that do n't know exists ?
This is the primary function of advertising as a concept , ( though not the primary function of the ads that I 'm sure annoy you ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How, precisely, are you supposed to search for something that don't know exists?
This is the primary function of advertising as a concept, (though not the primary function of the ads that I'm sure annoy you).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473866</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1261067400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think most people can understand how ads are good in keeping sites free, but I don't think we'll have the pleasure of non-intrusive ads ever.</i></p><p>I think most people don't understand that they can block the ads using easy to install software. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people still using IE6 (with no quick and easy adblocking abilities) or some outdated version of Firefox without running ABP.</p><p>I use ads to pay for the work I do on my own website but I, as a publisher of content, do what I can to ensure that the majority of my regular repeat readership doesn't see them. So in addition to the fact that Google's partners are supposedly keeping their ads sane, I'm adding an additional layer of security for those I care the most about.</p><p>As long as at least one party out there does that, it should remain in balance--for the most part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most people can understand how ads are good in keeping sites free , but I do n't think we 'll have the pleasure of non-intrusive ads ever.I think most people do n't understand that they can block the ads using easy to install software .
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people still using IE6 ( with no quick and easy adblocking abilities ) or some outdated version of Firefox without running ABP.I use ads to pay for the work I do on my own website but I , as a publisher of content , do what I can to ensure that the majority of my regular repeat readership does n't see them .
So in addition to the fact that Google 's partners are supposedly keeping their ads sane , I 'm adding an additional layer of security for those I care the most about.As long as at least one party out there does that , it should remain in balance--for the most part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most people can understand how ads are good in keeping sites free, but I don't think we'll have the pleasure of non-intrusive ads ever.I think most people don't understand that they can block the ads using easy to install software.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people still using IE6 (with no quick and easy adblocking abilities) or some outdated version of Firefox without running ABP.I use ads to pay for the work I do on my own website but I, as a publisher of content, do what I can to ensure that the majority of my regular repeat readership doesn't see them.
So in addition to the fact that Google's partners are supposedly keeping their ads sane, I'm adding an additional layer of security for those I care the most about.As long as at least one party out there does that, it should remain in balance--for the most part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473726</id>
	<title>This argument has merit</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1261066920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't block ads if they weren't everywhere and flash-heavy enough to slow down my browser.<br>
<br>
It would also help if ads were a bit more honest. I believe Bill Watterson referred to them as "insidious manipulation of human desires for commercial purposes."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't block ads if they were n't everywhere and flash-heavy enough to slow down my browser .
It would also help if ads were a bit more honest .
I believe Bill Watterson referred to them as " insidious manipulation of human desires for commercial purposes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't block ads if they weren't everywhere and flash-heavy enough to slow down my browser.
It would also help if ads were a bit more honest.
I believe Bill Watterson referred to them as "insidious manipulation of human desires for commercial purposes.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474344</id>
	<title>Good theory, but disproved by reality.</title>
	<author>chefmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261069320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately the ads blockers catch all of the other ads too. I don't mind ads that behave but the moving/talking ones are so annoying that I will block everything to get rid of them.</p></div><p>I agree 100\%. I feel bad about blocking huge swaths of ads (e.g., everything from doubleclick) just for one or two bad apples -- but I tried playing whack-a-mole by blocking only the annoying ones for a while. It simply didn't work. The hyperactive flashing, jumping, talking ads simply are created too quickly to block each of them as a one-off. So I have rules that, for example, block all of doubleclick.net. And anything with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/ads/ in the URL. And 245 similar other rules.</p><p>I've even had to block the small, boutique ad providers -- like projectwonderful.com -- that I'd really like to see succeed. But they end up serving up too many animated and/or risqu&#233; ads, so I had to block them as well.</p><p>So, as much as I'd like to believe what Upson has to say about adblockers destroying the market for annoying ads, I just haven't seen it happen. And I've been watching for well over a decade now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the ads blockers catch all of the other ads too .
I do n't mind ads that behave but the moving/talking ones are so annoying that I will block everything to get rid of them.I agree 100 \ % .
I feel bad about blocking huge swaths of ads ( e.g. , everything from doubleclick ) just for one or two bad apples -- but I tried playing whack-a-mole by blocking only the annoying ones for a while .
It simply did n't work .
The hyperactive flashing , jumping , talking ads simply are created too quickly to block each of them as a one-off .
So I have rules that , for example , block all of doubleclick.net .
And anything with /ads/ in the URL .
And 245 similar other rules.I 've even had to block the small , boutique ad providers -- like projectwonderful.com -- that I 'd really like to see succeed .
But they end up serving up too many animated and/or risqu   ads , so I had to block them as well.So , as much as I 'd like to believe what Upson has to say about adblockers destroying the market for annoying ads , I just have n't seen it happen .
And I 've been watching for well over a decade now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the ads blockers catch all of the other ads too.
I don't mind ads that behave but the moving/talking ones are so annoying that I will block everything to get rid of them.I agree 100\%.
I feel bad about blocking huge swaths of ads (e.g., everything from doubleclick) just for one or two bad apples -- but I tried playing whack-a-mole by blocking only the annoying ones for a while.
It simply didn't work.
The hyperactive flashing, jumping, talking ads simply are created too quickly to block each of them as a one-off.
So I have rules that, for example, block all of doubleclick.net.
And anything with /ads/ in the URL.
And 245 similar other rules.I've even had to block the small, boutique ad providers -- like projectwonderful.com -- that I'd really like to see succeed.
But they end up serving up too many animated and/or risqué ads, so I had to block them as well.So, as much as I'd like to believe what Upson has to say about adblockers destroying the market for annoying ads, I just haven't seen it happen.
And I've been watching for well over a decade now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30479782</id>
	<title>already had</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261046820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; I already had ad blocking in chrome, and almost any other internet app by using admuncher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  I already had ad blocking in chrome , and almost any other internet app by using admuncher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  I already had ad blocking in chrome, and almost any other internet app by using admuncher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473530</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>callinyouin</author>
	<datestamp>1261066200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems like some best-case-scenario-wishful-thinking to me. I really don't think this is Google's actual opinion on the issue, IMO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like some best-case-scenario-wishful-thinking to me .
I really do n't think this is Google 's actual opinion on the issue , IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like some best-case-scenario-wishful-thinking to me.
I really don't think this is Google's actual opinion on the issue, IMO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474276</id>
	<title>Re:Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261069020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In case of Google it's quite justified - their ads are the only widespread ones which consistently don't seem to be annoying to vast majority of people.</p><p>When was the last time you've heard somebody being fed up with them? (vs. eye-raping GIFs or similar Flash ones? The latter often slow, loud or covering the webpage proper)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In case of Google it 's quite justified - their ads are the only widespread ones which consistently do n't seem to be annoying to vast majority of people.When was the last time you 've heard somebody being fed up with them ?
( vs. eye-raping GIFs or similar Flash ones ?
The latter often slow , loud or covering the webpage proper )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In case of Google it's quite justified - their ads are the only widespread ones which consistently don't seem to be annoying to vast majority of people.When was the last time you've heard somebody being fed up with them?
(vs. eye-raping GIFs or similar Flash ones?
The latter often slow, loud or covering the webpage proper)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30492274</id>
	<title>A good thing &amp; AN EVEN BETTER THING, inside</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261127340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"I would be ok with the occasional banner ad or something along those lines, but we all know that for every advertiser that attempts to play nicely, a dozen others will come up with some new obnoxious ad."</b> - by Thyamine (531612)  on Thursday December 17, @10:11AM (#30473552) Homepage</p></div><p>The worst example of those "obnoxious ads" you speak of? See my "p.s." below, for examples of where malware payloads have been found numerous times in banner ad code no less...That being the case?</p><p>I can show anyone here how to get a FASTER &amp; SAFER "HBO-Style" internet online, easily, &amp; from a SIHGLE EASILY OBTAINED + EASILY EDITED FILE (that uses no excess CPU cycles or is as buggy as other solutions are or can be (nanely DNS servers &amp;/or browser addons).</p><p>Also - Per my subject-line above:  <b>How about a GLOBAL solution, instead, &amp; one that extends to ALL of your "webbound apps", instead, AND acts as "layered security" in combination with the FF/Mozilla only methods you use</b> (which slow your browser down, use CPU cycles &amp; more... where this solution does not &amp; covers ALL webbound apps, globally)<b>??</b></p><p>Ok, well then - Here we go, &amp; on that note, specifically:</p><p><b>Here is a GOOD SOLID &amp; GLOBAL WORK-AROUND, CALLED A HOSTS FILE!</b></p><p>(It works for more speed online, AND SECURITY ESPECIALLY...)</p><p><b>HOSTS files also work for your money too!</b></p><p>(I state that because you pay for your linetime out of pocket most likely as I do, you can get back your speed, AND, gain security easily, &amp; from a single easily edited file &amp; a file eats no CPU cycles like a local DNS server can (&amp; are not as security vulnerable either if you protect write access to a HOSTS file also)...</p><p><b>SO - "that all said &amp; aside"? Well, per your reply??</b></p><p><b>I use a custom HOSTS file, in addition to the tools others here in this thread have noted</b> (which MANY like FF addons only really function for FireFox/Mozilla products, but don't extend globally to all other webbound applications, &amp; that is part of what HOSTS files give you above the methods you extoll + utilize: "GLOBAL COVERAGE", &amp; of ALL webbound apps, not just FireFox/Mozilla ones via the addons you noted + use yourself...).</p><p><b>HOSTS files can also be used to blockout KNOWN "bad" adserves, maliciously coded sites or adbanners, and "botnet C&amp;C servers" too!</b></p><p><b>You can obtain reliable HOSTS files from reputable lists for more security online, but also for speed!</b></p><p>(More on that later &amp; WHY/HOW (I use reliable lists for that, such as these HOSTS @ Wikipedia.com -&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file</a> [wikipedia.org] or those from mvps.org (a good one this one))</p><p><b>I also further populate &amp; keep current my custom HOSTS file with up to date information in regards to all of those threats, via:</b></p><p>----</p><p>A.) Spybot "Search &amp; Destroy" updates (populates HOSTS and browser block lists)</p><p>B.) Sites like ZDNet's Mr. Dancho Danchev's blog -&gt; <a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>C.) Sites like FireEye -&gt; <a href="http://blog.fireeye.com/" title="fireeye.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.fireeye.com/</a> [fireeye.com]</p><p>D.) SRI -&gt; <a href="http://mtc.sri.com/" title="sri.com" rel="nofollow">http://mtc.sri.com/</a> [sri.com]</p><p>----</p><p>My HOSTS file incorporates ALL of the entries from the HOSTS files shown @ wikipedia as well... gaining me speed online (by blocking adbanners, which have been compromised many times the past few years now by malscripted exploits (examples below)).</p><p>(I combined ALL reputable HOSTS files with one of my own (30,000 entries), &amp; I removed duplicates removed via a Borland Delphi app I wrote to do so called "APK HOSTS File Grinder 4.0++". That program also functions to change the default larger &amp; SLOWER 127.0.0.1 blocking 'loopback adapter' IP address to either 0.0.0.0 (for VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7, smaller &amp; thus faster than 127.0.0.1 default) or the smallest &amp; fastest 0 "blocking 'IP ADDRESS'" (for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 which can STILL use it (&amp; it was added in a service pack on Windows 2000, only on 12/09/2008 MS patch tuesday was it removed for VISTA onwards (&amp; now all these "phunny little bugs" are showing up as FLAWS in this new NDIS6 approach via WFP as well in the firewall, which ROOTKIT.COM has stated (with code too no less on how it is done) -&gt; <a href="http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952" title="rootkit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952</a> [rootkit.com] that it is EASIER TO UNHOOK (than was the design used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003))</p><p><b>Another EXCELLENT benefit of HOSTS file usage? More speed online, &amp; also more security + reliability</b> (especially in the case of DNS servers today, per folks like Dan Kaminsky &amp;/or Moxie Marlinspike finding various security vulnerabilities in them the past couple years now)...</p><p>SO, <b>to get more speed online &amp; thus, YOUR MONEY'S WORTH OUT OF YOUR MONTHLY ISP/BSP bill for online services</b> (besides/above potentially hijacked adbanners etc. et al that you might have to PAY FOR to remove from your system if it becomes thus infected)?</p><p>WELL - <b>I use another "technique" called "hardcoding" an IP address to domainname/hostname in my HOSTS files, for my FAVORITE websites:</b></p><p><b>This allows me to FIRST bypass any remote/external DNS lookups, which also would in theory @ least, make me "proofed" vs. DNS request logs by my ISP/BSP also.</b></p><p>(Especially since I use external DNS servers too, OpenDNS ones to be specific, that go beyond my hardcoded favs in my HOSTS file because I can't ping &amp; resolve the ENTIRE internet after all)</p><p><b>This also makes it harder for others to track me...</b></p><p>(Sure, they could do a "reverse DNS lookup" via pings &amp;/or traceroutes &amp; the top level domain that does nothing BUT cache reverse DNS lookups does the rest, but that is harder to do, than looking up my URL requests via a log on a DNS server))</p><p><b>ALSO, AS ANOTHER "BONUS" in HOSTS FILES</b> (can't stress it enough, &amp; especially above + beyond adbanner blocking)<b>: It speeds you up, or can!</b></p><p>E.G.-&gt; A buddy of mine named Jack says it has (verbatim quote) "DOUBLED MY SPEED ONLINE, BUT I VALUE THE SECURITY PART MORE", because he used to get over 200++ viruses a week, now? Only maybe 2 a year IF THAT lately, &amp; he is convinced it is largely due to the HOSTS file I send him weekly (he is my "lab rat #1" due to his previous infestation rate), &amp; if that "anecdotal evidence" is not enough? See this then, from a published security guru on a respected site for it:</p><p>====</p><p><b>RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:</b></p><p>(by Mr. Oliver Day)</p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p><b>PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:</b></p><p>"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now."</p><p>"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."</p><p>====</p><p>(A nice bonus beyond blocking adbanners via HOSTS too, because these have been shown to harbor malscripted content too &amp; more than just a few times the past 4-5 yrs now no less such as is noted here in my PS below, several examples thereof no less), because you don't waste between 30-N ms calling out to an external DNS!</p><p>(Again, and a DNS server that MAY be poisoned per Dan Kaminsky the past few years now &amp; others also noting it)</p><p>Thus, <b>you can STILL GET TO YOUR FAV. SITES IF HARDCODED in your HOSTS FILE</b> (a good thing, but one you may have to periodically alter, easily, via notepad.exe edits of your HOSTS file &amp; a ping to update their new address (sites change hosting providers due to better services or prices, rare, but they do &amp; MOST let you know they are about to do so anyhow, so you can amend a HOSTS file)).</p><p><b>NICEST PART IS, THOUGH</b> (in addition to the benefits of HOSTS file I note above, alongside others like Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM)?</p><p><b>I will STILL get to where it is that I WANT TO GO, not the router's</b> (home, or external ISP/BSP or 3rd party ones) <b>onboard DNS server doing hostname/domainname resolutions or potential hijacked redirects... in theory @ least, because I am controlling the hostname/dommainname resolutions @ AN OS + IP STACK LEVEL, not via my routers' onboard DNS server...</b></p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; <b>Evidences as to WHY you'd want to add on the "extra layered security protection" of a HOSTS file, which extends global security coverage to your webbound apps, AND, allows for a great deal of added extra speed as well? Ok, here are some documented reasons why like:</b></p><p>a.) DNS servers vulnerable, under attack, failing or being "DNS poisoned" misdirected &amp; more</p><p>b.) Security suites failing vs. modern "blended threats" online</p><p>c.) javascript being used to do most of this via apps)</p><p>d.) adbanners being maliciously coded also...</p><p>(Here we go with documented proofs/examples:)</p><p><b>POISONED MALSCRIPTED ADBANNERS</b></p><p><b>The Next Ad You Click May Be a Virus:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Attackers Infect Ads With Old Adobe Vulnerability:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/25/024211" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/25/024211</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick</a> [wired.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Adobe Flash Ads Launching Clipboard Hijack Attacks:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&amp;from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&amp;from=rss</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Slashdot | Americans Don't Want Targeted Ads:</b></p><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>====</p><p><b>DNS PROBLEMS:</b></p><p><b>Number of Rogue DNS Servers on the Rise:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/02/15/2118212" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/02/15/2118212</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Security Researcher Kaminsky Pushes DNS Patching:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/2322231" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/2322231</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=05/08/04/1525235" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=05/08/04/1525235</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Another DNS Flaw Found:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/09/2348240" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/09/2348240</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Attack Code Published For DNS Vulnerability:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/07/23/231254" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/07/23/231254</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/09/123222" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/09/123222</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=06/03/16/1658209" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=06/03/16/1658209</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/21/2343250" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/21/2343250</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS Root Servers Attacked:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=07/02/06/2238225" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=07/02/06/2238225</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444354&amp;cid=30109858" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444354&amp;cid=30109858</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Are your servers vulnerable to DNS attacks?</b></p><p><a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111907-dns-attacks.html" title="networkworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111907-dns-attacks.html</a> [networkworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Kaminsky On DNS Bugs a Year Later and DNSSEC:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/25/1354212/Kaminsky-On-DNS-Bugs-a-Year-Later-and-DNSSEC" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/25/1354212/Kaminsky-On-DNS-Bugs-a-Year-Later-and-DNSSEC</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS users put higher premium on security:</b></p><p><a href="http://news.techworld.com/networking/10690/dns-users-put-higher-premium-on-security/" title="techworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.techworld.com/networking/10690/dns-users-put-higher-premium-on-security/</a> [techworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>BIND, the Buggy Internet Name Daemon:</b></p><p><a href="http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html" title="cr.yp.to" rel="nofollow">http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html</a> [cr.yp.to]</p><p>(Where djbdns was found to have flaw, though it was alleged invulnerable, they paid out $10,000 reward)</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS Dan Kaminsky DNS SPOOF ATTACK EXPLAINED HOW IT IS DONE:</b></p><p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1520" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1520</a> [zdnet.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>DNS REBINDING ATTACKS: MultiPinning Browser JavaScript Vulnerability</b> (how to protect yourself):</p><p><a href="http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/" title="stanford.edu" rel="nofollow">http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/</a> [stanford.edu]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Hackers hijack DNS records of high profile New Zealand sites:</b></p><p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3185" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3185</a> [zdnet.com]</p><p>====</p><p><b>SECURITY SUITE PROGRAMS FAILING:</b></p><p><b>AntiVirus Products Fail to Find Simple IE Malware:</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/29/1747237" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/29/1747237</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Most Security Products Fail To Perform:</b></p><p><a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1445302&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30114652" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1445302&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30114652</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>TOP SECURITY SUITES FAIL 64/300 THREATS in 2008 AT SECUNIA.COM:</b></p><p><a href="http://secunia.com/blog/29/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/blog/29/</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Top security suites fail exploit tests:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117042/Top\_security\_suites\_fail\_exploit\_tests?intsrc=news\_ts\_head" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117042/Top\_security\_suites\_fail\_exploit\_tests?intsrc=news\_ts\_head</a> [computerworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Antivirus is 'completely wasted money': Cisco CSO: News - Security - ZDNet Australia:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Antivirus-is-completely-wasted-money-Cisco-CSO/0,130061744,339289122,00.htm?feed=pt\_auscert" title="zdnet.com.au" rel="nofollow">http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Antivirus-is-completely-wasted-money-Cisco-CSO/0,130061744,339289122,00.htm?feed=pt\_auscert</a> [zdnet.com.au]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Are Routers the Next Big Target for Hackers?</b></p><p><a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=919" title="zdnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=919</a> [zdnet.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Software Firewalls: Made of Straw? Part 1 of 2:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p><b>Software Firewalls: Made of Straw? Part 2 of 2:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840/2" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840/2</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Brief study shows difficulty in detecting malware (2008):</b></p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/858" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/858</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>2007 - Browser vulnerabilities and attacks will continue to mount:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/browser-vulnerabilities-and-attacks-will-continue-mount-679" title="infoworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/browser-vulnerabilities-and-attacks-will-continue-mount-679</a> [infoworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Bug exposes Cisco switches to attacks:</b></p><p><a href="http://news.cnet.com/Bug-exposes-Cisco-switches+to+attacks/2110-7349\_3-5902897.html?part=rss&amp;tag=5902897&amp;subj=news" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/Bug-exposes-Cisco-switches+to+attacks/2110-7349\_3-5902897.html?part=rss&amp;tag=5902897&amp;subj=news</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>&amp;</p><p><b>CISCO "COMES CLEAN" ON EXTENT OF IOS FLAW:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Cisco-Comes-Clean-on-Extent-of-IOS-Flaw/" title="eweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Cisco-Comes-Clean-on-Extent-of-IOS-Flaw/</a> [eweek.com]</p><p>&amp;</p><p><b>Cisco PIX and ASA Time-To-Live Denial of Service Vulnerability:</b></p><p><a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/28625/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/28625/</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>+</p><p><b>Computer routers face hijack risk - study:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/16/tech-routervulnerabilty-20070216.html?ref=rss" title="www.cbc.ca" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/16/tech-routervulnerabilty-20070216.html?ref=rss</a> [www.cbc.ca]</p><p><b>Slashdot Technology Story | Will Mainstream Media Embrace Adblockers?</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/1442243/Will-Mainstream-Media-Embrace-Adblockers" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/1442243/Will-Mainstream-Media-Embrace-Adblockers</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites:</b></p><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1432514&amp;cid=30024078" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1432514&amp;cid=30024078</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>====</p><p><b>JAVASCRIPT PROBLEMS:</b></p><p><b>Slashdot | Adobe Confirms PDF Zero-Day, Says Kill JavaScript:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/29/1823234" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/29/1823234</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Adobe Flash Zero-Day Attack Underway:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/28/0138247&amp;from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/28/0138247&amp;from=rss</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>JavaScript flaw reported in Adobe Reader</b> (4th or 5th time already, if not more):</p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/953" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/953</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Another malware pulls an Italian job via JAVASCRIPT:</b></p><p><a href="http://blog.trendmicro.com/another-malware-pulls-an-italian-job/" title="trendmicro.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.trendmicro.com/another-malware-pulls-an-italian-job/</a> [trendmicro.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>JavaScript opens doors to browser-based attacks | CNET News.com:</b></p><p><a href="http://news.com.com/JavaScript+opens+doors+to+browser-based+attacks/2100-7349\_3-6099891.html?part=rss&amp;tag=6099891&amp;subj=news" title="com.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.com.com/JavaScript+opens+doors+to+browser-based+attacks/2100-7349\_3-6099891.html?part=rss&amp;tag=6099891&amp;subj=news</a> [com.com]<br>----</p><p><b>Mozilla Firefox Javascript Garbage Collector Vulnerability - Advisories - Secunia</b></p><p><a href="http://secunia.com/advisories/29787/" title="secunia.com" rel="nofollow">http://secunia.com/advisories/29787/</a> [secunia.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>New script outstrips all other drive-by download risks:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/script\_menace/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/script\_menace/</a> [theregister.co.uk]<br>----</p><p><b>Researcher to demonstrate attack code for Intel chips via Javascript:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/researcher-demonstrate-attack-code-intel-chips-036" title="infoworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/researcher-demonstrate-attack-code-intel-chips-036</a> [infoworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Researcher: JavaScript Attacks Get Slicker:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Researcher-JavaScript-Attacks-Get-Slicker/" title="eweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Researcher-JavaScript-Attacks-Get-Slicker/</a> [eweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Rise Of The PDF Exploits:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.trustedsource.org/blog/153/Rise-Of-The-PDF-Exploits" title="trustedsource.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.trustedsource.org/blog/153/Rise-Of-The-PDF-Exploits</a> [trustedsource.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>ADOBE NEW FLAW DOES USE JAVASCRIPT PROOF:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Calendar.20090219" title="shadowserver.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Calendar.20090219</a> [shadowserver.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>AJAX Poses Security, Performance Risks:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1916673,00.asp" title="eweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1916673,00.asp</a> [eweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Web 2.0 Threats and Risks for Financial Services:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.net-security.org/article.php?id=1004&amp;p=1" title="net-security.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.net-security.org/article.php?id=1004&amp;p=1</a> [net-security.org]</p><p><a href="http://www.cbronline.com/news/web\_20\_is\_vulnerable\_to\_attack" title="cbronline.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbronline.com/news/web\_20\_is\_vulnerable\_to\_attack</a> [cbronline.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Cross Site Scripting (GOOGLE) and WHY TO TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.cgisecurity.com/xss-faq.html" title="cgisecurity.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cgisecurity.com/xss-faq.html</a> [cgisecurity.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Why the FBI Director Doesn't Bank Online</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/08/0327240" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/08/0327240</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>====</p><p><b>MAJOR ATTACKS</b> (only a small sample) <b>of WHY LAYERED SECURITY IS NEEDED</b></p><p><b>Is the Botnet Battle Already Lost?</b></p><p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp" title="eweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp</a> [eweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>IT Pros Say They Can't Stop Data Breaches:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2010325,00.asp?kc=EWNAVEMNL083106EOAD" title="eweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2010325,00.asp?kc=EWNAVEMNL083106EOAD</a> [eweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Cyber Attacks On US Military Jump Sharply In 2009</b></p><p><a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1452358&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;cid=30185742" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1452358&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;cid=30185742</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Bots Found Inside Many Big Companies:</b></p><p><a href="http://blogs.baselinemag.com/security/content001/cybercrime/bots\_found\_inside\_many\_big\_companies.html" title="baselinemag.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.baselinemag.com/security/content001/cybercrime/bots\_found\_inside\_many\_big\_companies.html</a> [baselinemag.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Bot master owns up to 250,000 zombie PCs:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11495" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11495</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Bots surge ahead (2007):</b></p><p><a href="http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/466" title="securityfocus.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/466</a> [securityfocus.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Chinese Hackers Hit Commerce Department:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193105227" title="informationweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193105227</a> [informationweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>CIA Admits Cyberattacks Blacked Out Cities:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205901631" title="informationweek.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205901631</a> [informationweek.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Compromised Banks and Investment sites list 2006:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233921&amp;cid=19035679" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233921&amp;cid=19035679</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Dancho Danchev's Blog - Mind Streams of Information Security Knowledge: Massive IFRAME SEO Poisoning Attack Continuing:</b></p><p><a href="http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-iframe-seo-poisoning-attack.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-iframe-seo-poisoning-attack.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Data at Bank of America, Wachovia, others compromised - May. 23, 2005:</b></p><p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/news/fortune500/bank\_info/index.htm" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/news/fortune500/bank\_info/index.htm</a> [cnn.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Fresh Security Breaches at Los Alamos:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19418769/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/" title="msn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19418769/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/</a> [msn.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>Infected job search sites lead to info theft for 46,000:</b></p><p><a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9031139/Infected\_job\_search\_sites\_lead\_to\_info\_theft\_for\_46\_000" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9031139/Infected\_job\_search\_sites\_lead\_to\_info\_theft\_for\_46\_000</a> [computerworld.com]</p><p>----</p><p><b>New Mega-Botnet Discovered:</b></p><p><a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/2223214" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/2223214</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>----</p><p><b>I think THAT list ought to "enlighten" ANYONE, as to why "layered security" is &amp; has been considered largely to be "THE WAY TO GO", vs. that list above</b> (which is only a SMALL \%-age of what I can come up with in regards to threats online + their causes)... <b>HOSTS files help protect vs. those, on several levels - DO consider their usage!</b></p><p>apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I would be ok with the occasional banner ad or something along those lines , but we all know that for every advertiser that attempts to play nicely , a dozen others will come up with some new obnoxious ad .
" - by Thyamine ( 531612 ) on Thursday December 17 , @ 10 : 11AM ( # 30473552 ) HomepageThe worst example of those " obnoxious ads " you speak of ?
See my " p.s .
" below , for examples of where malware payloads have been found numerous times in banner ad code no less...That being the case ? I can show anyone here how to get a FASTER &amp; SAFER " HBO-Style " internet online , easily , &amp; from a SIHGLE EASILY OBTAINED + EASILY EDITED FILE ( that uses no excess CPU cycles or is as buggy as other solutions are or can be ( nanely DNS servers &amp;/or browser addons ) .Also - Per my subject-line above : How about a GLOBAL solution , instead , &amp; one that extends to ALL of your " webbound apps " , instead , AND acts as " layered security " in combination with the FF/Mozilla only methods you use ( which slow your browser down , use CPU cycles &amp; more... where this solution does not &amp; covers ALL webbound apps , globally ) ?
? Ok , well then - Here we go , &amp; on that note , specifically : Here is a GOOD SOLID &amp; GLOBAL WORK-AROUND , CALLED A HOSTS FILE !
( It works for more speed online , AND SECURITY ESPECIALLY... ) HOSTS files also work for your money too !
( I state that because you pay for your linetime out of pocket most likely as I do , you can get back your speed , AND , gain security easily , &amp; from a single easily edited file &amp; a file eats no CPU cycles like a local DNS server can ( &amp; are not as security vulnerable either if you protect write access to a HOSTS file also ) ...SO - " that all said &amp; aside " ?
Well , per your reply ?
? I use a custom HOSTS file , in addition to the tools others here in this thread have noted ( which MANY like FF addons only really function for FireFox/Mozilla products , but do n't extend globally to all other webbound applications , &amp; that is part of what HOSTS files give you above the methods you extoll + utilize : " GLOBAL COVERAGE " , &amp; of ALL webbound apps , not just FireFox/Mozilla ones via the addons you noted + use yourself... ) .HOSTS files can also be used to blockout KNOWN " bad " adserves , maliciously coded sites or adbanners , and " botnet C&amp;C servers " too ! You can obtain reliable HOSTS files from reputable lists for more security online , but also for speed !
( More on that later &amp; WHY/HOW ( I use reliable lists for that , such as these HOSTS @ Wikipedia.com - &gt; http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts \ _file [ wikipedia.org ] or those from mvps.org ( a good one this one ) ) I also further populate &amp; keep current my custom HOSTS file with up to date information in regards to all of those threats , via : ----A .
) Spybot " Search &amp; Destroy " updates ( populates HOSTS and browser block lists ) B .
) Sites like ZDNet 's Mr. Dancho Danchev 's blog - &gt; http : //ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ] C. ) Sites like FireEye - &gt; http : //blog.fireeye.com/ [ fireeye.com ] D. ) SRI - &gt; http : //mtc.sri.com/ [ sri.com ] ----My HOSTS file incorporates ALL of the entries from the HOSTS files shown @ wikipedia as well... gaining me speed online ( by blocking adbanners , which have been compromised many times the past few years now by malscripted exploits ( examples below ) ) .
( I combined ALL reputable HOSTS files with one of my own ( 30,000 entries ) , &amp; I removed duplicates removed via a Borland Delphi app I wrote to do so called " APK HOSTS File Grinder 4.0 + + " .
That program also functions to change the default larger &amp; SLOWER 127.0.0.1 blocking 'loopback adapter ' IP address to either 0.0.0.0 ( for VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7 , smaller &amp; thus faster than 127.0.0.1 default ) or the smallest &amp; fastest 0 " blocking 'IP ADDRESS ' " ( for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 which can STILL use it ( &amp; it was added in a service pack on Windows 2000 , only on 12/09/2008 MS patch tuesday was it removed for VISTA onwards ( &amp; now all these " phunny little bugs " are showing up as FLAWS in this new NDIS6 approach via WFP as well in the firewall , which ROOTKIT.COM has stated ( with code too no less on how it is done ) - &gt; http : //www.rootkit.com/newsread.php ? newsid = 952 [ rootkit.com ] that it is EASIER TO UNHOOK ( than was the design used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 ) ) Another EXCELLENT benefit of HOSTS file usage ?
More speed online , &amp; also more security + reliability ( especially in the case of DNS servers today , per folks like Dan Kaminsky &amp;/or Moxie Marlinspike finding various security vulnerabilities in them the past couple years now ) ...SO , to get more speed online &amp; thus , YOUR MONEY 'S WORTH OUT OF YOUR MONTHLY ISP/BSP bill for online services ( besides/above potentially hijacked adbanners etc .
et al that you might have to PAY FOR to remove from your system if it becomes thus infected ) ? WELL - I use another " technique " called " hardcoding " an IP address to domainname/hostname in my HOSTS files , for my FAVORITE websites : This allows me to FIRST bypass any remote/external DNS lookups , which also would in theory @ least , make me " proofed " vs. DNS request logs by my ISP/BSP also .
( Especially since I use external DNS servers too , OpenDNS ones to be specific , that go beyond my hardcoded favs in my HOSTS file because I ca n't ping &amp; resolve the ENTIRE internet after all ) This also makes it harder for others to track me... ( Sure , they could do a " reverse DNS lookup " via pings &amp;/or traceroutes &amp; the top level domain that does nothing BUT cache reverse DNS lookups does the rest , but that is harder to do , than looking up my URL requests via a log on a DNS server ) ) ALSO , AS ANOTHER " BONUS " in HOSTS FILES ( ca n't stress it enough , &amp; especially above + beyond adbanner blocking ) : It speeds you up , or can ! E.G.- &gt; A buddy of mine named Jack says it has ( verbatim quote ) " DOUBLED MY SPEED ONLINE , BUT I VALUE THE SECURITY PART MORE " , because he used to get over 200 + + viruses a week , now ?
Only maybe 2 a year IF THAT lately , &amp; he is convinced it is largely due to the HOSTS file I send him weekly ( he is my " lab rat # 1 " due to his previous infestation rate ) , &amp; if that " anecdotal evidence " is not enough ?
See this then , from a published security guru on a respected site for it : = = = = RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE : ( by Mr. Oliver Day ) http : //www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [ securityfocus.com ] PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES : " The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long .
Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now .
" " From what I have seen in my research , major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade .
The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties .
More recently , projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware .
" = = = = ( A nice bonus beyond blocking adbanners via HOSTS too , because these have been shown to harbor malscripted content too &amp; more than just a few times the past 4-5 yrs now no less such as is noted here in my PS below , several examples thereof no less ) , because you do n't waste between 30-N ms calling out to an external DNS !
( Again , and a DNS server that MAY be poisoned per Dan Kaminsky the past few years now &amp; others also noting it ) Thus , you can STILL GET TO YOUR FAV .
SITES IF HARDCODED in your HOSTS FILE ( a good thing , but one you may have to periodically alter , easily , via notepad.exe edits of your HOSTS file &amp; a ping to update their new address ( sites change hosting providers due to better services or prices , rare , but they do &amp; MOST let you know they are about to do so anyhow , so you can amend a HOSTS file ) ) .NICEST PART IS , THOUGH ( in addition to the benefits of HOSTS file I note above , alongside others like Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM ) ? I will STILL get to where it is that I WANT TO GO , not the router 's ( home , or external ISP/BSP or 3rd party ones ) onboard DNS server doing hostname/domainname resolutions or potential hijacked redirects... in theory @ least , because I am controlling the hostname/dommainname resolutions @ AN OS + IP STACK LEVEL , not via my routers ' onboard DNS server...APKP.S. = &gt; Evidences as to WHY you 'd want to add on the " extra layered security protection " of a HOSTS file , which extends global security coverage to your webbound apps , AND , allows for a great deal of added extra speed as well ?
Ok , here are some documented reasons why like : a .
) DNS servers vulnerable , under attack , failing or being " DNS poisoned " misdirected &amp; moreb .
) Security suites failing vs. modern " blended threats " onlinec .
) javascript being used to do most of this via apps ) d. ) adbanners being maliciously coded also... ( Here we go with documented proofs/examples : ) POISONED MALSCRIPTED ADBANNERSThe Next Ad You Click May Be a Virus : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/06/15/2056219 [ slashdot.org ] ----Attackers Infect Ads With Old Adobe Vulnerability : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/02/25/024211 [ slashdot.org ] ----Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC : http : //www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [ wired.com ] ----Adobe Flash Ads Launching Clipboard Hijack Attacks : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/08/20/0029220&amp;from = rss [ slashdot.org ] ----Slashdot | Americans Do n't Want Targeted Ads : http : //yro.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/10/01/1854214 [ slashdot.org ] = = = = DNS PROBLEMS : Number of Rogue DNS Servers on the Rise : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 08/02/15/2118212 [ slashdot.org ] ----Security Researcher Kaminsky Pushes DNS Patching : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/02/19/2322231 [ slashdot.org ] ----Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 05/08/04/1525235 [ slashdot.org ] ----TimeWarner DNS Hijacking : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 07/07/23/2140208 [ slashdot.org ] ----Another DNS Flaw Found : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/01/09/2348240 [ slashdot.org ] ----Attack Code Published For DNS Vulnerability : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 08/07/23/231254 [ slashdot.org ] ----BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 08/08/09/123222 [ slashdot.org ] ----DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 06/03/16/1658209 [ slashdot.org ] ----DNS Poisoning Hits One of China 's Biggest ISPs : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 08/08/21/2343250 [ slashdot.org ] ----DNS Root Servers Attacked : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? no \ _d2 = 1&amp;sid = 07/02/06/2238225 [ slashdot.org ] ----DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse : http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1444354&amp;cid = 30109858 [ slashdot.org ] ----Are your servers vulnerable to DNS attacks ? http : //www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111907-dns-attacks.html [ networkworld.com ] ----Kaminsky On DNS Bugs a Year Later and DNSSEC : http : //it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/25/1354212/Kaminsky-On-DNS-Bugs-a-Year-Later-and-DNSSEC [ slashdot.org ] ----DNS users put higher premium on security : http : //news.techworld.com/networking/10690/dns-users-put-higher-premium-on-security/ [ techworld.com ] ----BIND , the Buggy Internet Name Daemon : http : //cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html [ cr.yp.to ] ( Where djbdns was found to have flaw , though it was alleged invulnerable , they paid out $ 10,000 reward ) ----DNS Dan Kaminsky DNS SPOOF ATTACK EXPLAINED HOW IT IS DONE : http : //blogs.zdnet.com/security/ ? p = 1520 [ zdnet.com ] ----DNS REBINDING ATTACKS : MultiPinning Browser JavaScript Vulnerability ( how to protect yourself ) : http : //crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [ stanford.edu ] ----Hackers hijack DNS records of high profile New Zealand sites : http : //blogs.zdnet.com/security/ ? p = 3185 [ zdnet.com ] = = = = SECURITY SUITE PROGRAMS FAILING : AntiVirus Products Fail to Find Simple IE Malware : http : //tech.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 07/10/29/1747237 [ slashdot.org ] ----Most Security Products Fail To Perform : http : //hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1445302&amp;threshold = -1&amp;commentsort = 0&amp;mode = thread&amp;pid = 30114652 [ slashdot.org ] ----TOP SECURITY SUITES FAIL 64/300 THREATS in 2008 AT SECUNIA.COM : http : //secunia.com/blog/29/ [ secunia.com ] ----Top security suites fail exploit tests : http : //www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117042/Top \ _security \ _suites \ _fail \ _exploit \ _tests ? intsrc = news \ _ts \ _head [ computerworld.com ] ----Antivirus is 'completely wasted money ' : Cisco CSO : News - Security - ZDNet Australia : http : //www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Antivirus-is-completely-wasted-money-Cisco-CSO/0,130061744,339289122,00.htm ? feed = pt \ _auscert [ zdnet.com.au ] ----Are Routers the Next Big Target for Hackers ? http : //blogs.zdnet.com/security/ ? p = 919 [ zdnet.com ] ----Software Firewalls : Made of Straw ?
Part 1 of 2 : http : //www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839 [ securityfocus.com ] Software Firewalls : Made of Straw ?
Part 2 of 2 : http : //www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840/2 [ securityfocus.com ] ----Brief study shows difficulty in detecting malware ( 2008 ) : http : //www.securityfocus.com/brief/858 [ securityfocus.com ] ----2007 - Browser vulnerabilities and attacks will continue to mount : http : //www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/browser-vulnerabilities-and-attacks-will-continue-mount-679 [ infoworld.com ] ----Bug exposes Cisco switches to attacks : http : //news.cnet.com/Bug-exposes-Cisco-switches + to + attacks/2110-7349 \ _3-5902897.html ? part = rss&amp;tag = 5902897&amp;subj = news [ cnet.com ] &amp;CISCO " COMES CLEAN " ON EXTENT OF IOS FLAW : http : //www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Cisco-Comes-Clean-on-Extent-of-IOS-Flaw/ [ eweek.com ] &amp;Cisco PIX and ASA Time-To-Live Denial of Service Vulnerability : http : //secunia.com/advisories/28625/ [ secunia.com ] + Computer routers face hijack risk - study : http : //www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/16/tech-routervulnerabilty-20070216.html ? ref = rss [ www.cbc.ca ] Slashdot Technology Story | Will Mainstream Media Embrace Adblockers ? http : //tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/1442243/Will-Mainstream-Media-Embrace-Adblockers [ slashdot.org ] ----Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites : http : //yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1432514&amp;cid = 30024078 [ slashdot.org ] = = = = JAVASCRIPT PROBLEMS : Slashdot | Adobe Confirms PDF Zero-Day , Says Kill JavaScript : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/04/29/1823234 [ slashdot.org ] ----Adobe Flash Zero-Day Attack Underway : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/05/28/0138247&amp;from = rss [ slashdot.org ] ----JavaScript flaw reported in Adobe Reader ( 4th or 5th time already , if not more ) : http : //www.securityfocus.com/brief/953 [ securityfocus.com ] ----Another malware pulls an Italian job via JAVASCRIPT : http : //blog.trendmicro.com/another-malware-pulls-an-italian-job/ [ trendmicro.com ] ----JavaScript opens doors to browser-based attacks | CNET News.com : http : //news.com.com/JavaScript + opens + doors + to + browser-based + attacks/2100-7349 \ _3-6099891.html ? part = rss&amp;tag = 6099891&amp;subj = news [ com.com ] ----Mozilla Firefox Javascript Garbage Collector Vulnerability - Advisories - Secuniahttp : //secunia.com/advisories/29787/ [ secunia.com ] ----New script outstrips all other drive-by download risks : http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/script \ _menace/ [ theregister.co.uk ] ----Researcher to demonstrate attack code for Intel chips via Javascript : http : //www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/researcher-demonstrate-attack-code-intel-chips-036 [ infoworld.com ] ----Researcher : JavaScript Attacks Get Slicker : http : //www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Researcher-JavaScript-Attacks-Get-Slicker/ [ eweek.com ] ----Rise Of The PDF Exploits : http : //www.trustedsource.org/blog/153/Rise-Of-The-PDF-Exploits [ trustedsource.org ] ----ADOBE NEW FLAW DOES USE JAVASCRIPT PROOF : http : //www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php ? n = Calendar.20090219 [ shadowserver.org ] ----AJAX Poses Security , Performance Risks : http : //www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1916673,00.asp [ eweek.com ] ----Web 2.0 Threats and Risks for Financial Services : http : //www.net-security.org/article.php ? id = 1004&amp;p = 1 [ net-security.org ] http : //www.cbronline.com/news/web \ _20 \ _is \ _vulnerable \ _to \ _attack [ cbronline.com ] ----Cross Site Scripting ( GOOGLE ) and WHY TO TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT : http : //www.cgisecurity.com/xss-faq.html [ cgisecurity.com ] ----Why the FBI Director Does n't Bank Onlinehttp : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/10/08/0327240 [ slashdot.org ] = = = = MAJOR ATTACKS ( only a small sample ) of WHY LAYERED SECURITY IS NEEDEDIs the Botnet Battle Already Lost ? http : //www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp [ eweek.com ] ----IT Pros Say They Ca n't Stop Data Breaches : http : //www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2010325,00.asp ? kc = EWNAVEMNL083106EOAD [ eweek.com ] ----Cyber Attacks On US Military Jump Sharply In 2009http : //tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1452358&amp;threshold = -1&amp;commentsort = 0&amp;mode = thread&amp;cid = 30185742 [ slashdot.org ] ----Bots Found Inside Many Big Companies : http : //blogs.baselinemag.com/security/content001/cybercrime/bots \ _found \ _inside \ _many \ _big \ _companies.html [ baselinemag.com ] ----Bot master owns up to 250,000 zombie PCs : http : //www.securityfocus.com/news/11495 [ securityfocus.com ] ----Bots surge ahead ( 2007 ) : http : //www.securityfocus.com/brief/466 [ securityfocus.com ] ----Chinese Hackers Hit Commerce Department : http : //www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml ? articleID = 193105227 [ informationweek.com ] ----CIA Admits Cyberattacks Blacked Out Cities : http : //www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml ? articleID = 205901631 [ informationweek.com ] ----Compromised Banks and Investment sites list 2006 : http : //it.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 233921&amp;cid = 19035679 [ slashdot.org ] ----Dancho Danchev 's Blog - Mind Streams of Information Security Knowledge : Massive IFRAME SEO Poisoning Attack Continuing : http : //ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-iframe-seo-poisoning-attack.html [ blogspot.com ] ----Data at Bank of America , Wachovia , others compromised - May .
23 , 2005 : http : //money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/news/fortune500/bank \ _info/index.htm [ cnn.com ] ----Fresh Security Breaches at Los Alamos : http : //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19418769/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/ [ msn.com ] ----Infected job search sites lead to info theft for 46,000 : http : //www.computerworld.com/s/article/9031139/Infected \ _job \ _search \ _sites \ _lead \ _to \ _info \ _theft \ _for \ _46 \ _000 [ computerworld.com ] ----New Mega-Botnet Discovered : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/04/22/2223214 [ slashdot.org ] ----I think THAT list ought to " enlighten " ANYONE , as to why " layered security " is &amp; has been considered largely to be " THE WAY TO GO " , vs. that list above ( which is only a SMALL \ % -age of what I can come up with in regards to threats online + their causes ) ... HOSTS files help protect vs. those , on several levels - DO consider their usage ! apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I would be ok with the occasional banner ad or something along those lines, but we all know that for every advertiser that attempts to play nicely, a dozen others will come up with some new obnoxious ad.
" - by Thyamine (531612)  on Thursday December 17, @10:11AM (#30473552) HomepageThe worst example of those "obnoxious ads" you speak of?
See my "p.s.
" below, for examples of where malware payloads have been found numerous times in banner ad code no less...That being the case?I can show anyone here how to get a FASTER &amp; SAFER "HBO-Style" internet online, easily, &amp; from a SIHGLE EASILY OBTAINED + EASILY EDITED FILE (that uses no excess CPU cycles or is as buggy as other solutions are or can be (nanely DNS servers &amp;/or browser addons).Also - Per my subject-line above:  How about a GLOBAL solution, instead, &amp; one that extends to ALL of your "webbound apps", instead, AND acts as "layered security" in combination with the FF/Mozilla only methods you use (which slow your browser down, use CPU cycles &amp; more... where this solution does not &amp; covers ALL webbound apps, globally)?
?Ok, well then - Here we go, &amp; on that note, specifically:Here is a GOOD SOLID &amp; GLOBAL WORK-AROUND, CALLED A HOSTS FILE!
(It works for more speed online, AND SECURITY ESPECIALLY...)HOSTS files also work for your money too!
(I state that because you pay for your linetime out of pocket most likely as I do, you can get back your speed, AND, gain security easily, &amp; from a single easily edited file &amp; a file eats no CPU cycles like a local DNS server can (&amp; are not as security vulnerable either if you protect write access to a HOSTS file also)...SO - "that all said &amp; aside"?
Well, per your reply?
?I use a custom HOSTS file, in addition to the tools others here in this thread have noted (which MANY like FF addons only really function for FireFox/Mozilla products, but don't extend globally to all other webbound applications, &amp; that is part of what HOSTS files give you above the methods you extoll + utilize: "GLOBAL COVERAGE", &amp; of ALL webbound apps, not just FireFox/Mozilla ones via the addons you noted + use yourself...).HOSTS files can also be used to blockout KNOWN "bad" adserves, maliciously coded sites or adbanners, and "botnet C&amp;C servers" too!You can obtain reliable HOSTS files from reputable lists for more security online, but also for speed!
(More on that later &amp; WHY/HOW (I use reliable lists for that, such as these HOSTS @ Wikipedia.com -&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts\_file [wikipedia.org] or those from mvps.org (a good one this one))I also further populate &amp; keep current my custom HOSTS file with up to date information in regards to all of those threats, via:----A.
) Spybot "Search &amp; Destroy" updates (populates HOSTS and browser block lists)B.
) Sites like ZDNet's Mr. Dancho Danchev's blog -&gt; http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]C.) Sites like FireEye -&gt; http://blog.fireeye.com/ [fireeye.com]D.) SRI -&gt; http://mtc.sri.com/ [sri.com]----My HOSTS file incorporates ALL of the entries from the HOSTS files shown @ wikipedia as well... gaining me speed online (by blocking adbanners, which have been compromised many times the past few years now by malscripted exploits (examples below)).
(I combined ALL reputable HOSTS files with one of my own (30,000 entries), &amp; I removed duplicates removed via a Borland Delphi app I wrote to do so called "APK HOSTS File Grinder 4.0++".
That program also functions to change the default larger &amp; SLOWER 127.0.0.1 blocking 'loopback adapter' IP address to either 0.0.0.0 (for VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7, smaller &amp; thus faster than 127.0.0.1 default) or the smallest &amp; fastest 0 "blocking 'IP ADDRESS'" (for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 which can STILL use it (&amp; it was added in a service pack on Windows 2000, only on 12/09/2008 MS patch tuesday was it removed for VISTA onwards (&amp; now all these "phunny little bugs" are showing up as FLAWS in this new NDIS6 approach via WFP as well in the firewall, which ROOTKIT.COM has stated (with code too no less on how it is done) -&gt; http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952 [rootkit.com] that it is EASIER TO UNHOOK (than was the design used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003))Another EXCELLENT benefit of HOSTS file usage?
More speed online, &amp; also more security + reliability (especially in the case of DNS servers today, per folks like Dan Kaminsky &amp;/or Moxie Marlinspike finding various security vulnerabilities in them the past couple years now)...SO, to get more speed online &amp; thus, YOUR MONEY'S WORTH OUT OF YOUR MONTHLY ISP/BSP bill for online services (besides/above potentially hijacked adbanners etc.
et al that you might have to PAY FOR to remove from your system if it becomes thus infected)?WELL - I use another "technique" called "hardcoding" an IP address to domainname/hostname in my HOSTS files, for my FAVORITE websites:This allows me to FIRST bypass any remote/external DNS lookups, which also would in theory @ least, make me "proofed" vs. DNS request logs by my ISP/BSP also.
(Especially since I use external DNS servers too, OpenDNS ones to be specific, that go beyond my hardcoded favs in my HOSTS file because I can't ping &amp; resolve the ENTIRE internet after all)This also makes it harder for others to track me...(Sure, they could do a "reverse DNS lookup" via pings &amp;/or traceroutes &amp; the top level domain that does nothing BUT cache reverse DNS lookups does the rest, but that is harder to do, than looking up my URL requests via a log on a DNS server))ALSO, AS ANOTHER "BONUS" in HOSTS FILES (can't stress it enough, &amp; especially above + beyond adbanner blocking): It speeds you up, or can!E.G.-&gt; A buddy of mine named Jack says it has (verbatim quote) "DOUBLED MY SPEED ONLINE, BUT I VALUE THE SECURITY PART MORE", because he used to get over 200++ viruses a week, now?
Only maybe 2 a year IF THAT lately, &amp; he is convinced it is largely due to the HOSTS file I send him weekly (he is my "lab rat #1" due to his previous infestation rate), &amp; if that "anecdotal evidence" is not enough?
See this then, from a published security guru on a respected site for it:====RESURRECTING THE KILLFILE:(by Mr. Oliver Day)http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]PERTINENT EXCERPTS/QUOTES:"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long.
Accessing the Internet particularly browsing the Web is actually faster now.
""From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade.
The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties.
More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware.
"====(A nice bonus beyond blocking adbanners via HOSTS too, because these have been shown to harbor malscripted content too &amp; more than just a few times the past 4-5 yrs now no less such as is noted here in my PS below, several examples thereof no less), because you don't waste between 30-N ms calling out to an external DNS!
(Again, and a DNS server that MAY be poisoned per Dan Kaminsky the past few years now &amp; others also noting it)Thus, you can STILL GET TO YOUR FAV.
SITES IF HARDCODED in your HOSTS FILE (a good thing, but one you may have to periodically alter, easily, via notepad.exe edits of your HOSTS file &amp; a ping to update their new address (sites change hosting providers due to better services or prices, rare, but they do &amp; MOST let you know they are about to do so anyhow, so you can amend a HOSTS file)).NICEST PART IS, THOUGH (in addition to the benefits of HOSTS file I note above, alongside others like Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM)?I will STILL get to where it is that I WANT TO GO, not the router's (home, or external ISP/BSP or 3rd party ones) onboard DNS server doing hostname/domainname resolutions or potential hijacked redirects... in theory @ least, because I am controlling the hostname/dommainname resolutions @ AN OS + IP STACK LEVEL, not via my routers' onboard DNS server...APKP.S.=&gt; Evidences as to WHY you'd want to add on the "extra layered security protection" of a HOSTS file, which extends global security coverage to your webbound apps, AND, allows for a great deal of added extra speed as well?
Ok, here are some documented reasons why like:a.
) DNS servers vulnerable, under attack, failing or being "DNS poisoned" misdirected &amp; moreb.
) Security suites failing vs. modern "blended threats" onlinec.
) javascript being used to do most of this via apps)d.) adbanners being maliciously coded also...(Here we go with documented proofs/examples:)POISONED MALSCRIPTED ADBANNERSThe Next Ad You Click May Be a Virus:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/2056219 [slashdot.org]----Attackers Infect Ads With Old Adobe Vulnerability:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/25/024211 [slashdot.org]----Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]----Adobe Flash Ads Launching Clipboard Hijack Attacks:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&amp;from=rss [slashdot.org]----Slashdot | Americans Don't Want Targeted Ads:http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/01/1854214 [slashdot.org]====DNS PROBLEMS:Number of Rogue DNS Servers on the Rise:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/02/15/2118212 [slashdot.org]----Security Researcher Kaminsky Pushes DNS Patching:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/19/2322231 [slashdot.org]----Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=05/08/04/1525235 [slashdot.org]----TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]----Another DNS Flaw Found:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/09/2348240 [slashdot.org]----Attack Code Published For DNS Vulnerability:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/07/23/231254 [slashdot.org]----BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/09/123222 [slashdot.org]----DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=06/03/16/1658209 [slashdot.org]----DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=08/08/21/2343250 [slashdot.org]----DNS Root Servers Attacked:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?no\_d2=1&amp;sid=07/02/06/2238225 [slashdot.org]----DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444354&amp;cid=30109858 [slashdot.org]----Are your servers vulnerable to DNS attacks?http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111907-dns-attacks.html [networkworld.com]----Kaminsky On DNS Bugs a Year Later and DNSSEC:http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/25/1354212/Kaminsky-On-DNS-Bugs-a-Year-Later-and-DNSSEC [slashdot.org]----DNS users put higher premium on security:http://news.techworld.com/networking/10690/dns-users-put-higher-premium-on-security/ [techworld.com]----BIND, the Buggy Internet Name Daemon:http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/blurb/unbind.html [cr.yp.to](Where djbdns was found to have flaw, though it was alleged invulnerable, they paid out $10,000 reward)----DNS Dan Kaminsky DNS SPOOF ATTACK EXPLAINED HOW IT IS DONE:http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1520 [zdnet.com]----DNS REBINDING ATTACKS: MultiPinning Browser JavaScript Vulnerability (how to protect yourself):http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]----Hackers hijack DNS records of high profile New Zealand sites:http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3185 [zdnet.com]====SECURITY SUITE PROGRAMS FAILING:AntiVirus Products Fail to Find Simple IE Malware:http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/29/1747237 [slashdot.org]----Most Security Products Fail To Perform:http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1445302&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=30114652 [slashdot.org]----TOP SECURITY SUITES FAIL 64/300 THREATS in 2008 AT SECUNIA.COM:http://secunia.com/blog/29/ [secunia.com]----Top security suites fail exploit tests:http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9117042/Top\_security\_suites\_fail\_exploit\_tests?intsrc=news\_ts\_head [computerworld.com]----Antivirus is 'completely wasted money': Cisco CSO: News - Security - ZDNet Australia:http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Antivirus-is-completely-wasted-money-Cisco-CSO/0,130061744,339289122,00.htm?feed=pt\_auscert [zdnet.com.au]----Are Routers the Next Big Target for Hackers?http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=919 [zdnet.com]----Software Firewalls: Made of Straw?
Part 1 of 2:http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1839 [securityfocus.com]Software Firewalls: Made of Straw?
Part 2 of 2:http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1840/2 [securityfocus.com]----Brief study shows difficulty in detecting malware (2008):http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/858 [securityfocus.com]----2007 - Browser vulnerabilities and attacks will continue to mount:http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/browser-vulnerabilities-and-attacks-will-continue-mount-679 [infoworld.com]----Bug exposes Cisco switches to attacks:http://news.cnet.com/Bug-exposes-Cisco-switches+to+attacks/2110-7349\_3-5902897.html?part=rss&amp;tag=5902897&amp;subj=news [cnet.com]&amp;CISCO "COMES CLEAN" ON EXTENT OF IOS FLAW:http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Cisco-Comes-Clean-on-Extent-of-IOS-Flaw/ [eweek.com]&amp;Cisco PIX and ASA Time-To-Live Denial of Service Vulnerability:http://secunia.com/advisories/28625/ [secunia.com]+Computer routers face hijack risk - study:http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/02/16/tech-routervulnerabilty-20070216.html?ref=rss [www.cbc.ca]Slashdot Technology Story | Will Mainstream Media Embrace Adblockers?http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/06/1442243/Will-Mainstream-Media-Embrace-Adblockers [slashdot.org]----Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites:http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1432514&amp;cid=30024078 [slashdot.org]====JAVASCRIPT PROBLEMS:Slashdot | Adobe Confirms PDF Zero-Day, Says Kill JavaScript:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/29/1823234 [slashdot.org]----Adobe Flash Zero-Day Attack Underway:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/28/0138247&amp;from=rss [slashdot.org]----JavaScript flaw reported in Adobe Reader (4th or 5th time already, if not more):http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/953 [securityfocus.com]----Another malware pulls an Italian job via JAVASCRIPT:http://blog.trendmicro.com/another-malware-pulls-an-italian-job/ [trendmicro.com]----JavaScript opens doors to browser-based attacks | CNET News.com:http://news.com.com/JavaScript+opens+doors+to+browser-based+attacks/2100-7349\_3-6099891.html?part=rss&amp;tag=6099891&amp;subj=news [com.com]----Mozilla Firefox Javascript Garbage Collector Vulnerability - Advisories - Secuniahttp://secunia.com/advisories/29787/ [secunia.com]----New script outstrips all other drive-by download risks:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/15/script\_menace/ [theregister.co.uk]----Researcher to demonstrate attack code for Intel chips via Javascript:http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/researcher-demonstrate-attack-code-intel-chips-036 [infoworld.com]----Researcher: JavaScript Attacks Get Slicker:http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Researcher-JavaScript-Attacks-Get-Slicker/ [eweek.com]----Rise Of The PDF Exploits:http://www.trustedsource.org/blog/153/Rise-Of-The-PDF-Exploits [trustedsource.org]----ADOBE NEW FLAW DOES USE JAVASCRIPT PROOF:http://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Calendar.20090219 [shadowserver.org]----AJAX Poses Security, Performance Risks:http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1916673,00.asp [eweek.com]----Web 2.0 Threats and Risks for Financial Services:http://www.net-security.org/article.php?id=1004&amp;p=1 [net-security.org]http://www.cbronline.com/news/web\_20\_is\_vulnerable\_to\_attack [cbronline.com]----Cross Site Scripting (GOOGLE) and WHY TO TURN OFF JAVASCRIPT:http://www.cgisecurity.com/xss-faq.html [cgisecurity.com]----Why the FBI Director Doesn't Bank Onlinehttp://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/08/0327240 [slashdot.org]====MAJOR ATTACKS (only a small sample) of WHY LAYERED SECURITY IS NEEDEDIs the Botnet Battle Already Lost?http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2029720,00.asp [eweek.com]----IT Pros Say They Can't Stop Data Breaches:http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2010325,00.asp?kc=EWNAVEMNL083106EOAD [eweek.com]----Cyber Attacks On US Military Jump Sharply In 2009http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1452358&amp;threshold=-1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;cid=30185742 [slashdot.org]----Bots Found Inside Many Big Companies:http://blogs.baselinemag.com/security/content001/cybercrime/bots\_found\_inside\_many\_big\_companies.html [baselinemag.com]----Bot master owns up to 250,000 zombie PCs:http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11495 [securityfocus.com]----Bots surge ahead (2007):http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/466 [securityfocus.com]----Chinese Hackers Hit Commerce Department:http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193105227 [informationweek.com]----CIA Admits Cyberattacks Blacked Out Cities:http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205901631 [informationweek.com]----Compromised Banks and Investment sites list 2006:http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233921&amp;cid=19035679 [slashdot.org]----Dancho Danchev's Blog - Mind Streams of Information Security Knowledge: Massive IFRAME SEO Poisoning Attack Continuing:http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/massive-iframe-seo-poisoning-attack.html [blogspot.com]----Data at Bank of America, Wachovia, others compromised - May.
23, 2005:http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/23/news/fortune500/bank\_info/index.htm [cnn.com]----Fresh Security Breaches at Los Alamos:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19418769/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/ [msn.com]----Infected job search sites lead to info theft for 46,000:http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9031139/Infected\_job\_search\_sites\_lead\_to\_info\_theft\_for\_46\_000 [computerworld.com]----New Mega-Botnet Discovered:http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/2223214 [slashdot.org]----I think THAT list ought to "enlighten" ANYONE, as to why "layered security" is &amp; has been considered largely to be "THE WAY TO GO", vs. that list above (which is only a SMALL \%-age of what I can come up with in regards to threats online + their causes)... HOSTS files help protect vs. those, on several levels - DO consider their usage!apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474036</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>pipatron</author>
	<datestamp>1261068000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But.. why are you encouraging this behavior by using the websites? I know there are for example news sites that I refuse to visit because of the ugly ads, but there are dozens or hundreds of alternatives (at least here in Sweden..) that carry pretty much the same information sans obnoxious ads. Of course there <i>are</i> ads there, but discreet enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But.. why are you encouraging this behavior by using the websites ?
I know there are for example news sites that I refuse to visit because of the ugly ads , but there are dozens or hundreds of alternatives ( at least here in Sweden.. ) that carry pretty much the same information sans obnoxious ads .
Of course there are ads there , but discreet enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But.. why are you encouraging this behavior by using the websites?
I know there are for example news sites that I refuse to visit because of the ugly ads, but there are dozens or hundreds of alternatives (at least here in Sweden..) that carry pretty much the same information sans obnoxious ads.
Of course there are ads there, but discreet enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477344</id>
	<title>Re:The very next useful ad I see...</title>
	<author>Nightspirit</author>
	<datestamp>1261081320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have. I can't find the video but someone posted on reddit a video of a refrigerator TV ad from a mom and pop shop which had an an enthusiastic asian guy talk about how to pick the best refrigerators (insulation, how to tell cheap models that cut corners, etc)  and in about 1 minute I learned more about fridges than I have ever known. If I lived in the same area I have no doubt I would have bought a fridge from them if I needed one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have .
I ca n't find the video but someone posted on reddit a video of a refrigerator TV ad from a mom and pop shop which had an an enthusiastic asian guy talk about how to pick the best refrigerators ( insulation , how to tell cheap models that cut corners , etc ) and in about 1 minute I learned more about fridges than I have ever known .
If I lived in the same area I have no doubt I would have bought a fridge from them if I needed one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have.
I can't find the video but someone posted on reddit a video of a refrigerator TV ad from a mom and pop shop which had an an enthusiastic asian guy talk about how to pick the best refrigerators (insulation, how to tell cheap models that cut corners, etc)  and in about 1 minute I learned more about fridges than I have ever known.
If I lived in the same area I have no doubt I would have bought a fridge from them if I needed one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475236</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>pipatron</author>
	<datestamp>1261072980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's very easy to disable sigs on slashdot. I used to do it, but it got annoying when I noticed that people often comment on the sig.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very easy to disable sigs on slashdot .
I used to do it , but it got annoying when I noticed that people often comment on the sig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very easy to disable sigs on slashdot.
I used to do it, but it got annoying when I noticed that people often comment on the sig.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475924</id>
	<title>Sometimes useful</title>
	<author>carvalhao</author>
	<datestamp>1261076040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I will probably be modded down as troll, but not only I don't mind at all having ads in my Gmail account (after all, I am getting a "free" service, it is only fair they get something in return) but in a number of occasions I've actually found them useful, suggesting me relevant products that I didn't know about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will probably be modded down as troll , but not only I do n't mind at all having ads in my Gmail account ( after all , I am getting a " free " service , it is only fair they get something in return ) but in a number of occasions I 've actually found them useful , suggesting me relevant products that I did n't know about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will probably be modded down as troll, but not only I don't mind at all having ads in my Gmail account (after all, I am getting a "free" service, it is only fair they get something in return) but in a number of occasions I've actually found them useful, suggesting me relevant products that I didn't know about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474908</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261071720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good point. This is especially true if one's social network is limited, as in the case of many Slashdot users. For example, the fact that I don't watch pretty much any actual television on TV anymore means that I am largely not aware of upcoming movies that I might want to watch, and other things like that.</p><p>There are 3 purposes for advertising.</p><p>One is to let people know your product/service exists, especially if it is something people would find useful but are unlikely to go searching out. This is genuinely useful for consumers.</p><p>A second purpose is to provide pricing information. While people can look this up, there are occasions one must make a spur of the moment decision where one of the factors is costs. In such a case, there is no chance to look up information, so consumers must rely on whatever they remember about the prices to the extent that that factor comes into the picture. Advertisements with prices help these.</p><p>The final purpose which appears to be the most common purpose, and is not useful to consumers are the advertisements that are not trying to provide any useful information. Consider the average Coke advertisement (not an advertismenet for a new flavor, which would be letting people know it exists, but a general Coca-Cola ad). It has no pricing information, and everybody is already aware of the product. The only possible purpose for such an advertisement that I can see is to attempt to influence you into buying their product on grounds other than making an informed decision. Many people have a real problem with this kind of advertisement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
This is especially true if one 's social network is limited , as in the case of many Slashdot users .
For example , the fact that I do n't watch pretty much any actual television on TV anymore means that I am largely not aware of upcoming movies that I might want to watch , and other things like that.There are 3 purposes for advertising.One is to let people know your product/service exists , especially if it is something people would find useful but are unlikely to go searching out .
This is genuinely useful for consumers.A second purpose is to provide pricing information .
While people can look this up , there are occasions one must make a spur of the moment decision where one of the factors is costs .
In such a case , there is no chance to look up information , so consumers must rely on whatever they remember about the prices to the extent that that factor comes into the picture .
Advertisements with prices help these.The final purpose which appears to be the most common purpose , and is not useful to consumers are the advertisements that are not trying to provide any useful information .
Consider the average Coke advertisement ( not an advertismenet for a new flavor , which would be letting people know it exists , but a general Coca-Cola ad ) .
It has no pricing information , and everybody is already aware of the product .
The only possible purpose for such an advertisement that I can see is to attempt to influence you into buying their product on grounds other than making an informed decision .
Many people have a real problem with this kind of advertisement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
This is especially true if one's social network is limited, as in the case of many Slashdot users.
For example, the fact that I don't watch pretty much any actual television on TV anymore means that I am largely not aware of upcoming movies that I might want to watch, and other things like that.There are 3 purposes for advertising.One is to let people know your product/service exists, especially if it is something people would find useful but are unlikely to go searching out.
This is genuinely useful for consumers.A second purpose is to provide pricing information.
While people can look this up, there are occasions one must make a spur of the moment decision where one of the factors is costs.
In such a case, there is no chance to look up information, so consumers must rely on whatever they remember about the prices to the extent that that factor comes into the picture.
Advertisements with prices help these.The final purpose which appears to be the most common purpose, and is not useful to consumers are the advertisements that are not trying to provide any useful information.
Consider the average Coke advertisement (not an advertismenet for a new flavor, which would be letting people know it exists, but a general Coca-Cola ad).
It has no pricing information, and everybody is already aware of the product.
The only possible purpose for such an advertisement that I can see is to attempt to influence you into buying their product on grounds other than making an informed decision.
Many people have a real problem with this kind of advertisement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30497574</id>
	<title>Great -- everybody hates popups and banners!</title>
	<author>Randym</author>
	<datestamp>1261220940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, if Google would only come up with an ad-blocker for those annoying text ads!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if Google would only come up with an ad-blocker for those annoying text ads !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if Google would only come up with an ad-blocker for those annoying text ads!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475178</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1261072800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If some new product has been released, I will learn about it through the (relatively) unbiased news sources which I read to keep me up to date with such developments.</p><p>I don't need the manufacturer of said product to grab my shoulders, shake me around and scream into my face "hey you! look! I've made something new, you'll love it - honest! BUY IT NOW!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If some new product has been released , I will learn about it through the ( relatively ) unbiased news sources which I read to keep me up to date with such developments.I do n't need the manufacturer of said product to grab my shoulders , shake me around and scream into my face " hey you !
look ! I 've made something new , you 'll love it - honest !
BUY IT NOW !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If some new product has been released, I will learn about it through the (relatively) unbiased news sources which I read to keep me up to date with such developments.I don't need the manufacturer of said product to grab my shoulders, shake me around and scream into my face "hey you!
look! I've made something new, you'll love it - honest!
BUY IT NOW!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474132</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>customizedmischief</author>
	<datestamp>1261068360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is not completely unrealistic.  I do not block every ad, but I do it selectively for sites that irritate me.  For instance, Facebook ads get blocked because I don't ever want to see those fucking teeth ads again.  Also, I need to filter Facebook to block all of those surveys anyway.  Slashdot apparently offers to remove ads for free if you post several good comments, but I have never taken them up on that and clicked the box because the ads here are not that irritating.</p><p>I don't think the advertisers will ever come to a consensus that blinking popup ads of dancing babies with awful teeth schilling for fraudulent mortgage companies that install malware are below a certain standard of taste and should not be used, but the sites I use most often already seem to have the self-respect not to run crap like that.  Maybe if I spent more of my online time searching for free ringtones, things would be different for me.</p><p>Put another way, I am too lazy to block ads unless they piss me off.  Maybe the folks at Google are expecting a lot of people to be like me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is not completely unrealistic .
I do not block every ad , but I do it selectively for sites that irritate me .
For instance , Facebook ads get blocked because I do n't ever want to see those fucking teeth ads again .
Also , I need to filter Facebook to block all of those surveys anyway .
Slashdot apparently offers to remove ads for free if you post several good comments , but I have never taken them up on that and clicked the box because the ads here are not that irritating.I do n't think the advertisers will ever come to a consensus that blinking popup ads of dancing babies with awful teeth schilling for fraudulent mortgage companies that install malware are below a certain standard of taste and should not be used , but the sites I use most often already seem to have the self-respect not to run crap like that .
Maybe if I spent more of my online time searching for free ringtones , things would be different for me.Put another way , I am too lazy to block ads unless they piss me off .
Maybe the folks at Google are expecting a lot of people to be like me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is not completely unrealistic.
I do not block every ad, but I do it selectively for sites that irritate me.
For instance, Facebook ads get blocked because I don't ever want to see those fucking teeth ads again.
Also, I need to filter Facebook to block all of those surveys anyway.
Slashdot apparently offers to remove ads for free if you post several good comments, but I have never taken them up on that and clicked the box because the ads here are not that irritating.I don't think the advertisers will ever come to a consensus that blinking popup ads of dancing babies with awful teeth schilling for fraudulent mortgage companies that install malware are below a certain standard of taste and should not be used, but the sites I use most often already seem to have the self-respect not to run crap like that.
Maybe if I spent more of my online time searching for free ringtones, things would be different for me.Put another way, I am too lazy to block ads unless they piss me off.
Maybe the folks at Google are expecting a lot of people to be like me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475556</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1261074480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I think ad content kind of is the problem.  I mean yes, all of us find it annoying to have to see ads that we don't like, but certainly ads serve a purpose.  Right now, for example, I don't watch broadcast TV or cable TV.  For the first time in years, I'm hearing about popular products and movies through word-of-mouth that I had no idea existed.  I don't miss having to sit through the same dumb ads every 15 minutes, but I do slightly miss being exposed to the new things that ads have to offer.
</p><p>But it's not *just* the content.  It's also the form.  Being forced to look at or sit through an ad for a product that you have absolutely no interest in is stupid.  The annoying/dumb/parasitic quality of advertising comes from advertisers thinking it's their job to force you or coerce you to buy their product.  There's a funky quality where they seem to think, "Joe Schmoe might not like this product, but if we ram it down his throat frequently enough, he'll eventually give in and become a loyal customer."  Not all advertising is like that, though.  Sometimes it's just someone informing you that a product exists and letting you know what's good about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I think ad content kind of is the problem .
I mean yes , all of us find it annoying to have to see ads that we do n't like , but certainly ads serve a purpose .
Right now , for example , I do n't watch broadcast TV or cable TV .
For the first time in years , I 'm hearing about popular products and movies through word-of-mouth that I had no idea existed .
I do n't miss having to sit through the same dumb ads every 15 minutes , but I do slightly miss being exposed to the new things that ads have to offer .
But it 's not * just * the content .
It 's also the form .
Being forced to look at or sit through an ad for a product that you have absolutely no interest in is stupid .
The annoying/dumb/parasitic quality of advertising comes from advertisers thinking it 's their job to force you or coerce you to buy their product .
There 's a funky quality where they seem to think , " Joe Schmoe might not like this product , but if we ram it down his throat frequently enough , he 'll eventually give in and become a loyal customer .
" Not all advertising is like that , though .
Sometimes it 's just someone informing you that a product exists and letting you know what 's good about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I think ad content kind of is the problem.
I mean yes, all of us find it annoying to have to see ads that we don't like, but certainly ads serve a purpose.
Right now, for example, I don't watch broadcast TV or cable TV.
For the first time in years, I'm hearing about popular products and movies through word-of-mouth that I had no idea existed.
I don't miss having to sit through the same dumb ads every 15 minutes, but I do slightly miss being exposed to the new things that ads have to offer.
But it's not *just* the content.
It's also the form.
Being forced to look at or sit through an ad for a product that you have absolutely no interest in is stupid.
The annoying/dumb/parasitic quality of advertising comes from advertisers thinking it's their job to force you or coerce you to buy their product.
There's a funky quality where they seem to think, "Joe Schmoe might not like this product, but if we ram it down his throat frequently enough, he'll eventually give in and become a loyal customer.
"  Not all advertising is like that, though.
Sometimes it's just someone informing you that a product exists and letting you know what's good about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30480684</id>
	<title>Re:Old behavioral experiment</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1261050600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, I'm not a horse expert. Can you put that in terms of a car analogy, perhaps with spikes on the road and wheelies or something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , I 'm not a horse expert .
Can you put that in terms of a car analogy , perhaps with spikes on the road and wheelies or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, I'm not a horse expert.
Can you put that in terms of a car analogy, perhaps with spikes on the road and wheelies or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30480712</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1261050780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed; I hate seeing a person's signature over and over in every message. If you create an account on Slashdot, you can turn them off. Of course people often reference their signatures, leaving one at a loss as to what they are referring to. Note to signaturephiles: not everyone even has them displayed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed ; I hate seeing a person 's signature over and over in every message .
If you create an account on Slashdot , you can turn them off .
Of course people often reference their signatures , leaving one at a loss as to what they are referring to .
Note to signaturephiles : not everyone even has them displayed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed; I hate seeing a person's signature over and over in every message.
If you create an account on Slashdot, you can turn them off.
Of course people often reference their signatures, leaving one at a loss as to what they are referring to.
Note to signaturephiles: not everyone even has them displayed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476418</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261078020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck. Ads.</p><p>I'm not okay with them; ever.  I don't subscribe to cable for the same reason, I already paid why should I watch 10 minutes of commericials for 20 minutes of programs.  Put up a paypal button, if its' good enough people will donate.</p><p>thank god for adblock plus, i had no idea how bad the internet had become until i was forced to use clean IE installs with 0 adblocking at work.</p><p>you have a finite amount of time on this earth, i wonder how much the average american wastes of their lives watching this idiocy, from billboards on the road to morons with corporate logoed tshirts to trillions of popups and banner ads.</p><p>(ps, if i want to buy something i'll research the best products myself, i don't need to have your company try to seduce me with shiny + titties)<br>(pps, want to know more? research Bill Hicks and his opinion of marketing and marketing types)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck .
Ads.I 'm not okay with them ; ever .
I do n't subscribe to cable for the same reason , I already paid why should I watch 10 minutes of commericials for 20 minutes of programs .
Put up a paypal button , if its ' good enough people will donate.thank god for adblock plus , i had no idea how bad the internet had become until i was forced to use clean IE installs with 0 adblocking at work.you have a finite amount of time on this earth , i wonder how much the average american wastes of their lives watching this idiocy , from billboards on the road to morons with corporate logoed tshirts to trillions of popups and banner ads .
( ps , if i want to buy something i 'll research the best products myself , i do n't need to have your company try to seduce me with shiny + titties ) ( pps , want to know more ?
research Bill Hicks and his opinion of marketing and marketing types )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck.
Ads.I'm not okay with them; ever.
I don't subscribe to cable for the same reason, I already paid why should I watch 10 minutes of commericials for 20 minutes of programs.
Put up a paypal button, if its' good enough people will donate.thank god for adblock plus, i had no idea how bad the internet had become until i was forced to use clean IE installs with 0 adblocking at work.you have a finite amount of time on this earth, i wonder how much the average american wastes of their lives watching this idiocy, from billboards on the road to morons with corporate logoed tshirts to trillions of popups and banner ads.
(ps, if i want to buy something i'll research the best products myself, i don't need to have your company try to seduce me with shiny + titties)(pps, want to know more?
research Bill Hicks and his opinion of marketing and marketing types)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476392</id>
	<title>lemme translate...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261077960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google is going to eventually write code into their pages to detect active adblockers and deny you access until your turn them off....to your email, your calendars, etc.....</p><p>ex. "This site requires JavaScript Enabled"....</p><p>adblockers will be the "how" not the "why".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google is going to eventually write code into their pages to detect active adblockers and deny you access until your turn them off....to your email , your calendars , etc.....ex .
" This site requires JavaScript Enabled " ....adblockers will be the " how " not the " why " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google is going to eventually write code into their pages to detect active adblockers and deny you access until your turn them off....to your email, your calendars, etc.....ex.
"This site requires JavaScript Enabled"....adblockers will be the "how" not the "why".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473934</id>
	<title>Re:Kick the Pig to Win an iPOD * FLASH * FLASH *</title>
	<author>L0stb0Y</author>
	<datestamp>1261067580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree with this-  I actually enjoy ads that are for things I am interested in- further I like when a site I trust won't allow ads from companies that they deam are less than reputable (they do some weeding out for me)-</p><p>I really do think that the ability to turn ads on or off would be the best solution-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree with this- I actually enjoy ads that are for things I am interested in- further I like when a site I trust wo n't allow ads from companies that they deam are less than reputable ( they do some weeding out for me ) -I really do think that the ability to turn ads on or off would be the best solution-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree with this-  I actually enjoy ads that are for things I am interested in- further I like when a site I trust won't allow ads from companies that they deam are less than reputable (they do some weeding out for me)-I really do think that the ability to turn ads on or off would be the best solution-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476162</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1261077180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The entire point of an unsolicited ad is to grab a person's attention.</p></div><p>No, the point of an unsolicited ad is \_TO CONVINCE SOMEONE TO BUY SOMETHING FROM YOU\_. An ad that grabs my attention by being obnoxious and thereby convinces me never to buy anything from you is not just an utter failure, it's actually harmful to your company.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire point of an unsolicited ad is to grab a person 's attention.No , the point of an unsolicited ad is \ _TO CONVINCE SOMEONE TO BUY SOMETHING FROM YOU \ _ .
An ad that grabs my attention by being obnoxious and thereby convinces me never to buy anything from you is not just an utter failure , it 's actually harmful to your company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire point of an unsolicited ad is to grab a person's attention.No, the point of an unsolicited ad is \_TO CONVINCE SOMEONE TO BUY SOMETHING FROM YOU\_.
An ad that grabs my attention by being obnoxious and thereby convinces me never to buy anything from you is not just an utter failure, it's actually harmful to your company.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474822</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261071360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I frequently look for things that really don't exist and that I would like to buy, so ads don't seem to help with <b>that</b> problem. I'm yet to see the ad that advertises something I didn't know to exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I frequently look for things that really do n't exist and that I would like to buy , so ads do n't seem to help with that problem .
I 'm yet to see the ad that advertises something I did n't know to exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I frequently look for things that really don't exist and that I would like to buy, so ads don't seem to help with that problem.
I'm yet to see the ad that advertises something I didn't know to exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477382</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1261081500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Look at how the adblockers are all focused on removing as many ads as possible, without giving any sort of content-based (as opposed to host-based) granularity.</i></p><p>That's because there IS no way to filter based on content.  How exactly is an ad-blocker supposed to tell that image A from adserver33.doubleclick.net is just a nice, tasteful ad for a bird feeder, while image B from adserver69.doubleclick.net is a highly questionable ad for a male performance-enhancing pharmaceutical that will get you in big trouble if a lawsuit-seeking female at your workplace happens to walk by and notice it on your screen?  It can't, so it filters them all, and that's the correct behavior.</p><p>As far as I'm concerned, I don't want to see any image ads, EVER.  The advertisers had their chance, and they blew it, big time.  Flash ads are even worse, and I don't want to see those, EVER.  Text ads, OTOH, are fine, and I frequently find great little web stores that way.  I even run my own dinky little web store and use Google text ads, and it's been an enormous help while being extremely cheap.</p><p><i>But it seems like I'm in the minority. Just look at how many posts here are of the "I don't care if it's just a text ad I'm going to block it" school of thought.</i></p><p>You're on Slashdot.  This place is full of extremists who are not representative of the population at large.  I think they're ridiculous for being so against text ads, but then again there's a lot of people here who will argue ceaselessly about why the BSD license is so superior to the GPL (and vice versa).  Where in "meatspace" have you ever seen someone have that conversation?  It comes up on here all the time.  Just ignore them; they're a really small minority.</p><p>You probably are a minority, however, for taking the steps you do.  Most people are in one of two camps: 1) they don't care about ads, and don't use an ad-blocker at all.  This is probably 80+\% of the general internet-using population.  2) They hate annoying ads, and use AdBlock Plus and/or FlashBlock, because they're quick and easy to install and set up, and let them surf everywhere without their browser slowing to a crawl and seeing offensive X-10 ads or whatever.  They really don't care if they're hurting a few webmasters because there's too many others who have abused the privilege.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at how the adblockers are all focused on removing as many ads as possible , without giving any sort of content-based ( as opposed to host-based ) granularity.That 's because there IS no way to filter based on content .
How exactly is an ad-blocker supposed to tell that image A from adserver33.doubleclick.net is just a nice , tasteful ad for a bird feeder , while image B from adserver69.doubleclick.net is a highly questionable ad for a male performance-enhancing pharmaceutical that will get you in big trouble if a lawsuit-seeking female at your workplace happens to walk by and notice it on your screen ?
It ca n't , so it filters them all , and that 's the correct behavior.As far as I 'm concerned , I do n't want to see any image ads , EVER .
The advertisers had their chance , and they blew it , big time .
Flash ads are even worse , and I do n't want to see those , EVER .
Text ads , OTOH , are fine , and I frequently find great little web stores that way .
I even run my own dinky little web store and use Google text ads , and it 's been an enormous help while being extremely cheap.But it seems like I 'm in the minority .
Just look at how many posts here are of the " I do n't care if it 's just a text ad I 'm going to block it " school of thought.You 're on Slashdot .
This place is full of extremists who are not representative of the population at large .
I think they 're ridiculous for being so against text ads , but then again there 's a lot of people here who will argue ceaselessly about why the BSD license is so superior to the GPL ( and vice versa ) .
Where in " meatspace " have you ever seen someone have that conversation ?
It comes up on here all the time .
Just ignore them ; they 're a really small minority.You probably are a minority , however , for taking the steps you do .
Most people are in one of two camps : 1 ) they do n't care about ads , and do n't use an ad-blocker at all .
This is probably 80 + \ % of the general internet-using population .
2 ) They hate annoying ads , and use AdBlock Plus and/or FlashBlock , because they 're quick and easy to install and set up , and let them surf everywhere without their browser slowing to a crawl and seeing offensive X-10 ads or whatever .
They really do n't care if they 're hurting a few webmasters because there 's too many others who have abused the privilege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at how the adblockers are all focused on removing as many ads as possible, without giving any sort of content-based (as opposed to host-based) granularity.That's because there IS no way to filter based on content.
How exactly is an ad-blocker supposed to tell that image A from adserver33.doubleclick.net is just a nice, tasteful ad for a bird feeder, while image B from adserver69.doubleclick.net is a highly questionable ad for a male performance-enhancing pharmaceutical that will get you in big trouble if a lawsuit-seeking female at your workplace happens to walk by and notice it on your screen?
It can't, so it filters them all, and that's the correct behavior.As far as I'm concerned, I don't want to see any image ads, EVER.
The advertisers had their chance, and they blew it, big time.
Flash ads are even worse, and I don't want to see those, EVER.
Text ads, OTOH, are fine, and I frequently find great little web stores that way.
I even run my own dinky little web store and use Google text ads, and it's been an enormous help while being extremely cheap.But it seems like I'm in the minority.
Just look at how many posts here are of the "I don't care if it's just a text ad I'm going to block it" school of thought.You're on Slashdot.
This place is full of extremists who are not representative of the population at large.
I think they're ridiculous for being so against text ads, but then again there's a lot of people here who will argue ceaselessly about why the BSD license is so superior to the GPL (and vice versa).
Where in "meatspace" have you ever seen someone have that conversation?
It comes up on here all the time.
Just ignore them; they're a really small minority.You probably are a minority, however, for taking the steps you do.
Most people are in one of two camps: 1) they don't care about ads, and don't use an ad-blocker at all.
This is probably 80+\% of the general internet-using population.
2) They hate annoying ads, and use AdBlock Plus and/or FlashBlock, because they're quick and easy to install and set up, and let them surf everywhere without their browser slowing to a crawl and seeing offensive X-10 ads or whatever.
They really don't care if they're hurting a few webmasters because there's too many others who have abused the privilege.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476070</id>
	<title>ad blockers good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261076700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone tell Google that stuff they are smoking isn't legal in California, yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone tell Google that stuff they are smoking is n't legal in California , yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone tell Google that stuff they are smoking isn't legal in California, yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612</id>
	<title>Kick the Pig to Win an iPOD * FLASH * FLASH *</title>
	<author>hexed\_2050</author>
	<datestamp>1261066500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the ads were less annoying I wouldn't mind them at all.  Some of the ads are actually very informative rather than spammy if you are on a website that caters to your interest and delivers ads based on content served on the site.<br>
<br>
I'd love to see sites implement an ad protocol such as this:<br>
<br>
1. No flash-based or animated ads.<br>
2. No ads bigger than 300 x 100 pixels.<br>
3. No ads with bright contrasting colours such as orange when the entire site is white and green.<br>
4. All ads can be turned on or off at the user's preference.  This site implements an honour system.<br>
5. Users can select what categories of ads they would or would not like to be served.<br>
<br>
If websites and companies were just more sane about their ad policies, I think a lot less people would resort to ad-blockers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the ads were less annoying I would n't mind them at all .
Some of the ads are actually very informative rather than spammy if you are on a website that caters to your interest and delivers ads based on content served on the site .
I 'd love to see sites implement an ad protocol such as this : 1 .
No flash-based or animated ads .
2. No ads bigger than 300 x 100 pixels .
3. No ads with bright contrasting colours such as orange when the entire site is white and green .
4. All ads can be turned on or off at the user 's preference .
This site implements an honour system .
5. Users can select what categories of ads they would or would not like to be served .
If websites and companies were just more sane about their ad policies , I think a lot less people would resort to ad-blockers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the ads were less annoying I wouldn't mind them at all.
Some of the ads are actually very informative rather than spammy if you are on a website that caters to your interest and delivers ads based on content served on the site.
I'd love to see sites implement an ad protocol such as this:

1.
No flash-based or animated ads.
2. No ads bigger than 300 x 100 pixels.
3. No ads with bright contrasting colours such as orange when the entire site is white and green.
4. All ads can be turned on or off at the user's preference.
This site implements an honour system.
5. Users can select what categories of ads they would or would not like to be served.
If websites and companies were just more sane about their ad policies, I think a lot less people would resort to ad-blockers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474174</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1261068540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is usually the point where marketing folk will want to convince you that they have "studies" showing that you can create demand out of thin air by just showing people completely inappropriate, boring, offensive, time-wasting ads that viewers will never see because theirs minds are blanking them out after enough exposure to similar crap in the past. This wouldn't be a problem and you could happily laugh in their faces and rightfully call them morons, if they weren't also feeding the same nonsense to marketing people working for big advertisers with a similar mindset and convincing them to only advertise in the most annoying matter possible. So website publishers can choose to put up those annoying and pointless ads or forfeit their chance to get any advertising money.<br>
As for Google ads, they might be less intrusive and annoying, but they are far too often posted by fraudsters, pointing to websites with malware, or simply not appropriate for your audience. It would be much better if visitors could report ads as offensive/dangerous/inappropriate...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is usually the point where marketing folk will want to convince you that they have " studies " showing that you can create demand out of thin air by just showing people completely inappropriate , boring , offensive , time-wasting ads that viewers will never see because theirs minds are blanking them out after enough exposure to similar crap in the past .
This would n't be a problem and you could happily laugh in their faces and rightfully call them morons , if they were n't also feeding the same nonsense to marketing people working for big advertisers with a similar mindset and convincing them to only advertise in the most annoying matter possible .
So website publishers can choose to put up those annoying and pointless ads or forfeit their chance to get any advertising money .
As for Google ads , they might be less intrusive and annoying , but they are far too often posted by fraudsters , pointing to websites with malware , or simply not appropriate for your audience .
It would be much better if visitors could report ads as offensive/dangerous/inappropriate.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is usually the point where marketing folk will want to convince you that they have "studies" showing that you can create demand out of thin air by just showing people completely inappropriate, boring, offensive, time-wasting ads that viewers will never see because theirs minds are blanking them out after enough exposure to similar crap in the past.
This wouldn't be a problem and you could happily laugh in their faces and rightfully call them morons, if they weren't also feeding the same nonsense to marketing people working for big advertisers with a similar mindset and convincing them to only advertise in the most annoying matter possible.
So website publishers can choose to put up those annoying and pointless ads or forfeit their chance to get any advertising money.
As for Google ads, they might be less intrusive and annoying, but they are far too often posted by fraudsters, pointing to websites with malware, or simply not appropriate for your audience.
It would be much better if visitors could report ads as offensive/dangerous/inappropriate...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474572</id>
	<title>Re:Kick the Pig to Win an iPOD * FLASH * FLASH *</title>
	<author>secretcurse</author>
	<datestamp>1261070340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I definitely agree with your overall sentiment, do you really want to take the time to fill out an advertising preference form (which would require registration) for every bloody site on the internet?  I sure don't...</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I definitely agree with your overall sentiment , do you really want to take the time to fill out an advertising preference form ( which would require registration ) for every bloody site on the internet ?
I sure do n't.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I definitely agree with your overall sentiment, do you really want to take the time to fill out an advertising preference form (which would require registration) for every bloody site on the internet?
I sure don't...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473852</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use an ad blocker to stop:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Video ads that automatically play<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Animated ads<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Blinking ads<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Ads that automatically talk<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Ads that automatically popup<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Large multimedia ads on a wireless link</p><p>I don't want my web pages to move or make noise unless I tell them to. Telling them to means clicking - not mouse over.</p><p>Unfortunately the ads blockers catch all of the other ads too. I don't mind ads that behave but the moving/talking ones are so annoying that I will block everything to get rid of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use an ad blocker to stop :         Video ads that automatically play         Animated ads         Blinking ads         Ads that automatically talk         Ads that automatically popup         Large multimedia ads on a wireless linkI do n't want my web pages to move or make noise unless I tell them to .
Telling them to means clicking - not mouse over.Unfortunately the ads blockers catch all of the other ads too .
I do n't mind ads that behave but the moving/talking ones are so annoying that I will block everything to get rid of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use an ad blocker to stop:
        Video ads that automatically play
        Animated ads
        Blinking ads
        Ads that automatically talk
        Ads that automatically popup
        Large multimedia ads on a wireless linkI don't want my web pages to move or make noise unless I tell them to.
Telling them to means clicking - not mouse over.Unfortunately the ads blockers catch all of the other ads too.
I don't mind ads that behave but the moving/talking ones are so annoying that I will block everything to get rid of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476034</id>
	<title>How will that work?</title>
	<author>jridley</author>
	<datestamp>1261076640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How will I decide that ads at some level are OK; once I started running AdBlock, I just didn't see any ads anymore.  I can't make a decision that these ads are OK because I never see them.</p><p>FWIW, when I visit sites on other people's machines, the ads still bother me.  And I've been using the web since it was invented (and the internet in general before that, with FTP sites and remote terminal login) and I have yet to click on an ad, let alone buy something from one.</p><p>Also, Chrome's ad blockers stink.  The ads pop up anyway, then they disappear.  It's very irritating.  Apparently it has something to do with the architecture they've provided for plugins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will I decide that ads at some level are OK ; once I started running AdBlock , I just did n't see any ads anymore .
I ca n't make a decision that these ads are OK because I never see them.FWIW , when I visit sites on other people 's machines , the ads still bother me .
And I 've been using the web since it was invented ( and the internet in general before that , with FTP sites and remote terminal login ) and I have yet to click on an ad , let alone buy something from one.Also , Chrome 's ad blockers stink .
The ads pop up anyway , then they disappear .
It 's very irritating .
Apparently it has something to do with the architecture they 've provided for plugins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will I decide that ads at some level are OK; once I started running AdBlock, I just didn't see any ads anymore.
I can't make a decision that these ads are OK because I never see them.FWIW, when I visit sites on other people's machines, the ads still bother me.
And I've been using the web since it was invented (and the internet in general before that, with FTP sites and remote terminal login) and I have yet to click on an ad, let alone buy something from one.Also, Chrome's ad blockers stink.
The ads pop up anyway, then they disappear.
It's very irritating.
Apparently it has something to do with the architecture they've provided for plugins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475890</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>huha</author>
	<datestamp>1261075860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use. I don't want to see your crap.</p></div><p>... says someone whose signature contains an ad for his website.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't give a heck about what you 're advertising for , nor what style , images , words , whatever you use .
I do n't want to see your crap.... says someone whose signature contains an ad for his website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use.
I don't want to see your crap.... says someone whose signature contains an ad for his website.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474410</id>
	<title>Re:Google Mind Trick</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1261069500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm infected but I do like Google's ads on their site. Unblocked those in ABP. I literally missed them: that's where you find the commercial search results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm infected but I do like Google 's ads on their site .
Unblocked those in ABP .
I literally missed them : that 's where you find the commercial search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm infected but I do like Google's ads on their site.
Unblocked those in ABP.
I literally missed them: that's where you find the commercial search results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473632</id>
	<title>I see their point...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is true for me.  I loathe flash, blinking, pop-up ads.  I do whatever I can to eliminate them without even looking at what they're advertising.  But I okay with text ads...I even find them useful from time to time.  I'm more apt to not block and to read some text off to the side than attention-whore graphical ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true for me .
I loathe flash , blinking , pop-up ads .
I do whatever I can to eliminate them without even looking at what they 're advertising .
But I okay with text ads...I even find them useful from time to time .
I 'm more apt to not block and to read some text off to the side than attention-whore graphical ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true for me.
I loathe flash, blinking, pop-up ads.
I do whatever I can to eliminate them without even looking at what they're advertising.
But I okay with text ads...I even find them useful from time to time.
I'm more apt to not block and to read some text off to the side than attention-whore graphical ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475764</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Myopic</author>
	<datestamp>1261075380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct!</p><p>The only problem with this is in discovering new products and novel services. How will I know to look for it if I've never heard of it? That's one problem which advertising solves.</p><p>But, I'm with you: I'm rather have the problem of having to hear about novel products some other way, than the problem of being annoyed so much by every web page, that I have to avoid the web.</p><p>I already have to avoid television and radio because of the advertising problem: I use Netflix, bittorrent, and podcasts to get at (some of) the content without the advertisements. I'm really thankful for the internet in general, which puts MUCH more power in the hands of the consumers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct ! The only problem with this is in discovering new products and novel services .
How will I know to look for it if I 've never heard of it ?
That 's one problem which advertising solves.But , I 'm with you : I 'm rather have the problem of having to hear about novel products some other way , than the problem of being annoyed so much by every web page , that I have to avoid the web.I already have to avoid television and radio because of the advertising problem : I use Netflix , bittorrent , and podcasts to get at ( some of ) the content without the advertisements .
I 'm really thankful for the internet in general , which puts MUCH more power in the hands of the consumers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct!The only problem with this is in discovering new products and novel services.
How will I know to look for it if I've never heard of it?
That's one problem which advertising solves.But, I'm with you: I'm rather have the problem of having to hear about novel products some other way, than the problem of being annoyed so much by every web page, that I have to avoid the web.I already have to avoid television and radio because of the advertising problem: I use Netflix, bittorrent, and podcasts to get at (some of) the content without the advertisements.
I'm really thankful for the internet in general, which puts MUCH more power in the hands of the consumers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474378</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261069440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found the use of the term 'parasite' quiet funny in this context.</p><p>parasite<br>1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery<br>2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism<br>3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return<br>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite</p><p>Many, if not most, web-based services rely on advertising revenue to finance themselves. Using such services while blocking all advertisement is, in fact, somewhat parasitic.</p><p>full disclosure: I use an adblocker myself most of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found the use of the term 'parasite ' quiet funny in this context.parasite1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery2 : an organism living in , with , or on another organism in parasitism3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate returnhttp : //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasiteMany , if not most , web-based services rely on advertising revenue to finance themselves .
Using such services while blocking all advertisement is , in fact , somewhat parasitic.full disclosure : I use an adblocker myself most of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found the use of the term 'parasite' quiet funny in this context.parasite1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate returnhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasiteMany, if not most, web-based services rely on advertising revenue to finance themselves.
Using such services while blocking all advertisement is, in fact, somewhat parasitic.full disclosure: I use an adblocker myself most of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477446</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261081680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use. I don't want to see your crap. If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google. The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.</p></div><p>While I broadly agree, there is a special case here which, IMO, is a valid exception: new products embodying radically different concepts (or even something not different so much as non-obvious). In those cases, you may not find such things on Google because you won't know what to look for in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't give a heck about what you 're advertising for , nor what style , images , words , whatever you use .
I do n't want to see your crap .
If I need " product information " , I will find it - ironically - on Google .
The difference is that I 'll be looking for it , instead of getting it shoved down my throat , willingly or otherwise.While I broadly agree , there is a special case here which , IMO , is a valid exception : new products embodying radically different concepts ( or even something not different so much as non-obvious ) .
In those cases , you may not find such things on Google because you wo n't know what to look for in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use.
I don't want to see your crap.
If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google.
The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.While I broadly agree, there is a special case here which, IMO, is a valid exception: new products embodying radically different concepts (or even something not different so much as non-obvious).
In those cases, you may not find such things on Google because you won't know what to look for in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474364</id>
	<title>Re:If you're as good at it as Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261069380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to feel that way too.  I even liked google's text ads.  When I was searching for something the ads were often useful in directing me to what I wanted.  Then the link farms started showing up and 90\% of ads were simply links to a generic link farm page instead of something truly targeted to what I wanted.  At that point I setup ad-block to block everything, if google can't keep worthless parasites off their ad network, then I'm not going to help them pay their bills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to feel that way too .
I even liked google 's text ads .
When I was searching for something the ads were often useful in directing me to what I wanted .
Then the link farms started showing up and 90 \ % of ads were simply links to a generic link farm page instead of something truly targeted to what I wanted .
At that point I setup ad-block to block everything , if google ca n't keep worthless parasites off their ad network , then I 'm not going to help them pay their bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to feel that way too.
I even liked google's text ads.
When I was searching for something the ads were often useful in directing me to what I wanted.
Then the link farms started showing up and 90\% of ads were simply links to a generic link farm page instead of something truly targeted to what I wanted.
At that point I setup ad-block to block everything, if google can't keep worthless parasites off their ad network, then I'm not going to help them pay their bills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475378</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1261073700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, in order to have things really work, I think there needs to be something like feedback or negotiation.  Like if you can set the levels you're talking about with ad-blocker, there's still this problem where the people paying for the advertisement don't necessarily know what you're blocking it or why you're blocking it, and so they don't necessarily know what they have to do to rectify the situation.  I feel like it'd be great if someone could look at a sheet of stats and say, "Ok, well of the people who visit my site, X\% will look at any ads I put up, Y\% will block the animated images but not static images or text.  But there are Z\% of our visitors who will not block our ads if we put up text and static images, but will block all of our ads if we use Flash ads at all.  Given the amount of money we make from static images vs. Flash, it makes sense to stick with static images."
</p><p>Basically, until websites and advertisers can make that kind of calculation, it generally makes sense for them to throw up the most attention-grabbing ads and hope for the best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , in order to have things really work , I think there needs to be something like feedback or negotiation .
Like if you can set the levels you 're talking about with ad-blocker , there 's still this problem where the people paying for the advertisement do n't necessarily know what you 're blocking it or why you 're blocking it , and so they do n't necessarily know what they have to do to rectify the situation .
I feel like it 'd be great if someone could look at a sheet of stats and say , " Ok , well of the people who visit my site , X \ % will look at any ads I put up , Y \ % will block the animated images but not static images or text .
But there are Z \ % of our visitors who will not block our ads if we put up text and static images , but will block all of our ads if we use Flash ads at all .
Given the amount of money we make from static images vs. Flash , it makes sense to stick with static images .
" Basically , until websites and advertisers can make that kind of calculation , it generally makes sense for them to throw up the most attention-grabbing ads and hope for the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, in order to have things really work, I think there needs to be something like feedback or negotiation.
Like if you can set the levels you're talking about with ad-blocker, there's still this problem where the people paying for the advertisement don't necessarily know what you're blocking it or why you're blocking it, and so they don't necessarily know what they have to do to rectify the situation.
I feel like it'd be great if someone could look at a sheet of stats and say, "Ok, well of the people who visit my site, X\% will look at any ads I put up, Y\% will block the animated images but not static images or text.
But there are Z\% of our visitors who will not block our ads if we put up text and static images, but will block all of our ads if we use Flash ads at all.
Given the amount of money we make from static images vs. Flash, it makes sense to stick with static images.
"
Basically, until websites and advertisers can make that kind of calculation, it generally makes sense for them to throw up the most attention-grabbing ads and hope for the best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476690</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261078980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that can work in reverse, too.  Particularly annoying ads find the company they're advertising for on my personal blacklist.  Most of these are from TV, since adblock plus has basically killed online ads.</p><p>But... companies I will absolutely refuse to buy from, even if it means paying twice the price (yes, I've put my money where my mouth is already on this) elsewhere:</p><p>Old Navy<br>Harveys<br>Hardees<br>Arbys (strange that all three of the rhyming ones made my list... but I hated all their ads)<br>Robin's Donuts<br>Any 'Axe' based product (those body sprays, etc)</p><p>Those are the primary ones.  I will absolutely, outright refuse to set foot in their store, or purchase anything with their brand.</p><p>So yeah, good job with your obnoxious, annoying ads.  You permanantly lost a customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that can work in reverse , too .
Particularly annoying ads find the company they 're advertising for on my personal blacklist .
Most of these are from TV , since adblock plus has basically killed online ads.But... companies I will absolutely refuse to buy from , even if it means paying twice the price ( yes , I 've put my money where my mouth is already on this ) elsewhere : Old NavyHarveysHardeesArbys ( strange that all three of the rhyming ones made my list... but I hated all their ads ) Robin 's DonutsAny 'Axe ' based product ( those body sprays , etc ) Those are the primary ones .
I will absolutely , outright refuse to set foot in their store , or purchase anything with their brand.So yeah , good job with your obnoxious , annoying ads .
You permanantly lost a customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that can work in reverse, too.
Particularly annoying ads find the company they're advertising for on my personal blacklist.
Most of these are from TV, since adblock plus has basically killed online ads.But... companies I will absolutely refuse to buy from, even if it means paying twice the price (yes, I've put my money where my mouth is already on this) elsewhere:Old NavyHarveysHardeesArbys (strange that all three of the rhyming ones made my list... but I hated all their ads)Robin's DonutsAny 'Axe' based product (those body sprays, etc)Those are the primary ones.
I will absolutely, outright refuse to set foot in their store, or purchase anything with their brand.So yeah, good job with your obnoxious, annoying ads.
You permanantly lost a customer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30484756</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Eivind</author>
	<datestamp>1261130520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why ? Seriously, why would I set such an ad-blocker to any other setting than: block everything.</p><p>Ads aren't there for my benefit, they're there for someone elses. They're actually harmful to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Seriously , why would I set such an ad-blocker to any other setting than : block everything.Ads are n't there for my benefit , they 're there for someone elses .
They 're actually harmful to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why ?
Seriously, why would I set such an ad-blocker to any other setting than: block everything.Ads aren't there for my benefit, they're there for someone elses.
They're actually harmful to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475232</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261072920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course the core assumption here is that people block ads because the ad <b>content</b> is a problem.</p><p>What they don't realize (and what people in marketing <b>can not</b> realize, or they would have to admit that their whole professions is being a parasite and a PITA) is that it is the advertisement <b>itself</b> that is the problem.</p><p>I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use. I don't want to see your crap. If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google. The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.</p></div><p>best post about ads in a while</p><p>ALL ADVERTISING IS SPAM</p><p>there is no difference between the two</p><p>my problem is that I can't find any anti-advertising organisation to join that isn't full of communists....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the core assumption here is that people block ads because the ad content is a problem.What they do n't realize ( and what people in marketing can not realize , or they would have to admit that their whole professions is being a parasite and a PITA ) is that it is the advertisement itself that is the problem.I do n't give a heck about what you 're advertising for , nor what style , images , words , whatever you use .
I do n't want to see your crap .
If I need " product information " , I will find it - ironically - on Google .
The difference is that I 'll be looking for it , instead of getting it shoved down my throat , willingly or otherwise.best post about ads in a whileALL ADVERTISING IS SPAMthere is no difference between the twomy problem is that I ca n't find any anti-advertising organisation to join that is n't full of communists... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the core assumption here is that people block ads because the ad content is a problem.What they don't realize (and what people in marketing can not realize, or they would have to admit that their whole professions is being a parasite and a PITA) is that it is the advertisement itself that is the problem.I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use.
I don't want to see your crap.
If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google.
The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.best post about ads in a whileALL ADVERTISING IS SPAMthere is no difference between the twomy problem is that I can't find any anti-advertising organisation to join that isn't full of communists....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473666</id>
	<title>Why I block some ads</title>
	<author>MaraDNS</author>
	<datestamp>1261066680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I don't use adblock <i>per se</i>, I do use a combination of Firefox's advanced option to disable animated gifs (actually, to have them animate only once) as well as flashblock so I don't have to see animated flash ads.
</p><p>
The reason I do this is because I'm used to reading books; books do not have anything that animates in them, and anything that animates or continuously moves is very distracting for me when I am reading something.  I don't mind ads with bright, flashy colors; magazines have had those since the beginning of time [1], but I can't read a page when I see something animated; it's as annoying as having a fly.
</p><p>
As an aside, I remember in the early 2000s when Slashdot was very much against having animated flash ads.  Now, they're very common here.  I hope, now that the economy is picking up again, that Slashdot will go back to not having animated ads that I have to block.  Also, it would be really nice if Adobe gave flash an option where a flash document would never animate until you clicked on it.
</p><p>
[1] The air conditioner was invented so color printing presses used by advertisers would not have the ink run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do n't use adblock per se , I do use a combination of Firefox 's advanced option to disable animated gifs ( actually , to have them animate only once ) as well as flashblock so I do n't have to see animated flash ads .
The reason I do this is because I 'm used to reading books ; books do not have anything that animates in them , and anything that animates or continuously moves is very distracting for me when I am reading something .
I do n't mind ads with bright , flashy colors ; magazines have had those since the beginning of time [ 1 ] , but I ca n't read a page when I see something animated ; it 's as annoying as having a fly .
As an aside , I remember in the early 2000s when Slashdot was very much against having animated flash ads .
Now , they 're very common here .
I hope , now that the economy is picking up again , that Slashdot will go back to not having animated ads that I have to block .
Also , it would be really nice if Adobe gave flash an option where a flash document would never animate until you clicked on it .
[ 1 ] The air conditioner was invented so color printing presses used by advertisers would not have the ink run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I don't use adblock per se, I do use a combination of Firefox's advanced option to disable animated gifs (actually, to have them animate only once) as well as flashblock so I don't have to see animated flash ads.
The reason I do this is because I'm used to reading books; books do not have anything that animates in them, and anything that animates or continuously moves is very distracting for me when I am reading something.
I don't mind ads with bright, flashy colors; magazines have had those since the beginning of time [1], but I can't read a page when I see something animated; it's as annoying as having a fly.
As an aside, I remember in the early 2000s when Slashdot was very much against having animated flash ads.
Now, they're very common here.
I hope, now that the economy is picking up again, that Slashdot will go back to not having animated ads that I have to block.
Also, it would be really nice if Adobe gave flash an option where a flash document would never animate until you clicked on it.
[1] The air conditioner was invented so color printing presses used by advertisers would not have the ink run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476552</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261078500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problems aren't the ads themselves.</p><p>Its the lag time between the WEB host you are trying to access to the ad servers. I've seen it take twice as long if not longer for WEB pages to load due to Ad servers being either too slow.</p><p>Every sense I starting blocking ad servers at the firewall and plus Firefox+ABP the WEB pages load nearly instantly. Turn off all Ad blocking and it takes 10 secs or more to load a page.</p><p>The last time I tried Chrome I couldn't block Ads and haven't tried sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems are n't the ads themselves.Its the lag time between the WEB host you are trying to access to the ad servers .
I 've seen it take twice as long if not longer for WEB pages to load due to Ad servers being either too slow.Every sense I starting blocking ad servers at the firewall and plus Firefox + ABP the WEB pages load nearly instantly .
Turn off all Ad blocking and it takes 10 secs or more to load a page.The last time I tried Chrome I could n't block Ads and have n't tried sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problems aren't the ads themselves.Its the lag time between the WEB host you are trying to access to the ad servers.
I've seen it take twice as long if not longer for WEB pages to load due to Ad servers being either too slow.Every sense I starting blocking ad servers at the firewall and plus Firefox+ABP the WEB pages load nearly instantly.
Turn off all Ad blocking and it takes 10 secs or more to load a page.The last time I tried Chrome I couldn't block Ads and haven't tried sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30479490</id>
	<title>That's funny...</title>
	<author>Goaway</author>
	<datestamp>1261045740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not seeing any of all those Slashdotters who swore up and down that Google would never in a million years allow an ad blocker in their browser admitting they were wrong? What gives?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not seeing any of all those Slashdotters who swore up and down that Google would never in a million years allow an ad blocker in their browser admitting they were wrong ?
What gives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not seeing any of all those Slashdotters who swore up and down that Google would never in a million years allow an ad blocker in their browser admitting they were wrong?
What gives?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473810</id>
	<title>mod Up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BSD aadicts, flame First avoid going If you have the same operation MARKET. THEREFORE,</htmltext>
<tokenext>BSD aadicts , flame First avoid going If you have the same operation MARKET .
THEREFORE,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BSD aadicts, flame First avoid going If you have the same operation MARKET.
THEREFORE,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474880</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Necroman</author>
	<datestamp>1261071600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I had mod points to get you up to 5.  I actually don't mind ads when they aren't full page or something very annoying.  It's a way for those marketing people to tell me about new and exciting products.  Context specific, un-obtrusive ads have their place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I had mod points to get you up to 5 .
I actually do n't mind ads when they are n't full page or something very annoying .
It 's a way for those marketing people to tell me about new and exciting products .
Context specific , un-obtrusive ads have their place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I had mod points to get you up to 5.
I actually don't mind ads when they aren't full page or something very annoying.
It's a way for those marketing people to tell me about new and exciting products.
Context specific, un-obtrusive ads have their place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, I agree.  So please get rid of that damn thing about Lemuria Skies from your sig, because, if I want to find out about skyboxes for a video game, I can do a Google search.  Don't shove this information down my throat.  Your sig is very annoying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I agree .
So please get rid of that damn thing about Lemuria Skies from your sig , because , if I want to find out about skyboxes for a video game , I can do a Google search .
Do n't shove this information down my throat .
Your sig is very annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I agree.
So please get rid of that damn thing about Lemuria Skies from your sig, because, if I want to find out about skyboxes for a video game, I can do a Google search.
Don't shove this information down my throat.
Your sig is very annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474838</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>pavon</author>
	<datestamp>1261071420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact  that the current adblockers don't have that type of granularity is the reason I stopped using them. There are a handful of sites that I go to which are entirely supported by ads and usually have unobtrusive, tasteful ones. I don't want to deprive them of income just because other sites have annoying ads. Anymore, if I come to a site like that I just don't go back. If they really annoy me, I add them to my CustomizeOptimize Google blacklist so they don't even show up in my searches.</p><p>But it seems like I'm in the minority. Just look at how many posts here are of the "I don't care if it's just a text ad I'm going to block it" school of thought. Look at how the adblockers are all focused on removing as many ads as possible, without giving any sort of content-based (as opposed to host-based) granularity. I can understand the tracking concerns, for which blocking all ads really is the only safe way to go. I've been torn about doing so for that reason myself.</p><p>Instead I've tried to cobble together a set of plugins/config settings. I use Better Privacy and have third-party cookies turned off. NoScript was just too annoying for me, as was using a cookie white-list. I have pop-up blocking and Flash Block - I don't even watch legitimate flash widgets half the time, why waste the bandwidth and page loading time.  I wish there was something similar for animated GIFs. Right now the browsers have the option of "don't play", "play once", "play continuous". I would really like it if a little play icon showed up when you hovered over paused animated GIFs that would let you view them, so I could keep that setting off for ads but still view legitimate animations when I wanted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that the current adblockers do n't have that type of granularity is the reason I stopped using them .
There are a handful of sites that I go to which are entirely supported by ads and usually have unobtrusive , tasteful ones .
I do n't want to deprive them of income just because other sites have annoying ads .
Anymore , if I come to a site like that I just do n't go back .
If they really annoy me , I add them to my CustomizeOptimize Google blacklist so they do n't even show up in my searches.But it seems like I 'm in the minority .
Just look at how many posts here are of the " I do n't care if it 's just a text ad I 'm going to block it " school of thought .
Look at how the adblockers are all focused on removing as many ads as possible , without giving any sort of content-based ( as opposed to host-based ) granularity .
I can understand the tracking concerns , for which blocking all ads really is the only safe way to go .
I 've been torn about doing so for that reason myself.Instead I 've tried to cobble together a set of plugins/config settings .
I use Better Privacy and have third-party cookies turned off .
NoScript was just too annoying for me , as was using a cookie white-list .
I have pop-up blocking and Flash Block - I do n't even watch legitimate flash widgets half the time , why waste the bandwidth and page loading time .
I wish there was something similar for animated GIFs .
Right now the browsers have the option of " do n't play " , " play once " , " play continuous " .
I would really like it if a little play icon showed up when you hovered over paused animated GIFs that would let you view them , so I could keep that setting off for ads but still view legitimate animations when I wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact  that the current adblockers don't have that type of granularity is the reason I stopped using them.
There are a handful of sites that I go to which are entirely supported by ads and usually have unobtrusive, tasteful ones.
I don't want to deprive them of income just because other sites have annoying ads.
Anymore, if I come to a site like that I just don't go back.
If they really annoy me, I add them to my CustomizeOptimize Google blacklist so they don't even show up in my searches.But it seems like I'm in the minority.
Just look at how many posts here are of the "I don't care if it's just a text ad I'm going to block it" school of thought.
Look at how the adblockers are all focused on removing as many ads as possible, without giving any sort of content-based (as opposed to host-based) granularity.
I can understand the tracking concerns, for which blocking all ads really is the only safe way to go.
I've been torn about doing so for that reason myself.Instead I've tried to cobble together a set of plugins/config settings.
I use Better Privacy and have third-party cookies turned off.
NoScript was just too annoying for me, as was using a cookie white-list.
I have pop-up blocking and Flash Block - I don't even watch legitimate flash widgets half the time, why waste the bandwidth and page loading time.
I wish there was something similar for animated GIFs.
Right now the browsers have the option of "don't play", "play once", "play continuous".
I would really like it if a little play icon showed up when you hovered over paused animated GIFs that would let you view them, so I could keep that setting off for ads but still view legitimate animations when I wanted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474290</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>quixote9</author>
	<datestamp>1261069080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use. I don't want to see your crap. If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google. The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.</i>

Yes.  Exactly. Seconded, thirded, fourthed, fifthed.  Except I started using bing because they hang on to clickstreams for 48 hours instead of forever.  And as soon as I started, M$ expanded it to a month.  We need a non-commercial, open source, <b>people's</b> search engine.  Get to work, Wikipedia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't give a heck about what you 're advertising for , nor what style , images , words , whatever you use .
I do n't want to see your crap .
If I need " product information " , I will find it - ironically - on Google .
The difference is that I 'll be looking for it , instead of getting it shoved down my throat , willingly or otherwise .
Yes. Exactly .
Seconded , thirded , fourthed , fifthed .
Except I started using bing because they hang on to clickstreams for 48 hours instead of forever .
And as soon as I started , M $ expanded it to a month .
We need a non-commercial , open source , people 's search engine .
Get to work , Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use.
I don't want to see your crap.
If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google.
The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.
Yes.  Exactly.
Seconded, thirded, fourthed, fifthed.
Except I started using bing because they hang on to clickstreams for 48 hours instead of forever.
And as soon as I started, M$ expanded it to a month.
We need a non-commercial, open source, people's search engine.
Get to work, Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476230</id>
	<title>Re:You underestimate the Jews</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1261077360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic\_range\_compression#Marketing" title="wikipedia.org">dynamic range compression</a> [wikipedia.org] that is responsible for commercials being louder than regular content.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it is dynamic range compression [ wikipedia.org ] that is responsible for commercials being louder than regular content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it is dynamic range compression [wikipedia.org] that is responsible for commercials being louder than regular content.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475084</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261072380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ads support the free internet, there's no ifs, ands or buts about it. If you are so opposed to ads that you refuse to have even non-intrusive ones on your page, then you're nothing but a leech. A worse "parasite" than you describe the marketing people to be.<br>Hosting content costs money. You don't want to pay? Get the fuck off the internet.</i></p><p>I guess you're one of those people who would never dare change the channel or leave the room or even talk when TV adverts are on? If not, you're a fucking hypocrite. Those ads *pay* for those programs.</p><p>As for 'Get the fuck off the internet', WTF? I pay my ISP for access to the internet. Anything on a public server is freely offered in the *hope* that you may look at or click on adverts. If the sites don't want me to view stuff, put it behind a paywall, and *you* fuck off the public internet.<br>Plus I'm actually doing them a favour by *not* wasting their bandwidth downloading adverts that I'm not going to pay attention to and not going to click on.</p><p>There's always a stupid twat like you who comes out with this same old drivel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads support the free internet , there 's no ifs , ands or buts about it .
If you are so opposed to ads that you refuse to have even non-intrusive ones on your page , then you 're nothing but a leech .
A worse " parasite " than you describe the marketing people to be.Hosting content costs money .
You do n't want to pay ?
Get the fuck off the internet.I guess you 're one of those people who would never dare change the channel or leave the room or even talk when TV adverts are on ?
If not , you 're a fucking hypocrite .
Those ads * pay * for those programs.As for 'Get the fuck off the internet ' , WTF ?
I pay my ISP for access to the internet .
Anything on a public server is freely offered in the * hope * that you may look at or click on adverts .
If the sites do n't want me to view stuff , put it behind a paywall , and * you * fuck off the public internet.Plus I 'm actually doing them a favour by * not * wasting their bandwidth downloading adverts that I 'm not going to pay attention to and not going to click on.There 's always a stupid twat like you who comes out with this same old drivel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ads support the free internet, there's no ifs, ands or buts about it.
If you are so opposed to ads that you refuse to have even non-intrusive ones on your page, then you're nothing but a leech.
A worse "parasite" than you describe the marketing people to be.Hosting content costs money.
You don't want to pay?
Get the fuck off the internet.I guess you're one of those people who would never dare change the channel or leave the room or even talk when TV adverts are on?
If not, you're a fucking hypocrite.
Those ads *pay* for those programs.As for 'Get the fuck off the internet', WTF?
I pay my ISP for access to the internet.
Anything on a public server is freely offered in the *hope* that you may look at or click on adverts.
If the sites don't want me to view stuff, put it behind a paywall, and *you* fuck off the public internet.Plus I'm actually doing them a favour by *not* wasting their bandwidth downloading adverts that I'm not going to pay attention to and not going to click on.There's always a stupid twat like you who comes out with this same old drivel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473858</id>
	<title>I don't use Adblock Plus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Really, I don't.  I use NoScript instead, and will add defenses as I see fit.
</p><p>
It isn't so much that I like ads as that I don't mind them as long as they aren't dangerous or obnoxious.  (This means that I'm never going to give an ad site clearance in NoScript, for example.)  As long as advertisers don't bother me overmuch, I won't worry about them.
</p><p>
Fundamentally, Google's got an idea here.  The only question I have is whether the advertisers will, indeed, learn to control themselves and live within this contract.  About a third of television shows is ads, and there's plenty of obnoxious ads on the web.  Heck, there's plenty of billboards along highways that try to get your attention, and that's potentially lethal.  So, I'd bet that there will continue to be a need for ad blockers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , I do n't .
I use NoScript instead , and will add defenses as I see fit .
It is n't so much that I like ads as that I do n't mind them as long as they are n't dangerous or obnoxious .
( This means that I 'm never going to give an ad site clearance in NoScript , for example .
) As long as advertisers do n't bother me overmuch , I wo n't worry about them .
Fundamentally , Google 's got an idea here .
The only question I have is whether the advertisers will , indeed , learn to control themselves and live within this contract .
About a third of television shows is ads , and there 's plenty of obnoxious ads on the web .
Heck , there 's plenty of billboards along highways that try to get your attention , and that 's potentially lethal .
So , I 'd bet that there will continue to be a need for ad blockers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Really, I don't.
I use NoScript instead, and will add defenses as I see fit.
It isn't so much that I like ads as that I don't mind them as long as they aren't dangerous or obnoxious.
(This means that I'm never going to give an ad site clearance in NoScript, for example.
)  As long as advertisers don't bother me overmuch, I won't worry about them.
Fundamentally, Google's got an idea here.
The only question I have is whether the advertisers will, indeed, learn to control themselves and live within this contract.
About a third of television shows is ads, and there's plenty of obnoxious ads on the web.
Heck, there's plenty of billboards along highways that try to get your attention, and that's potentially lethal.
So, I'd bet that there will continue to be a need for ad blockers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474244</id>
	<title>Pot, meet Kettle.</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1261068900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, so ads served by Slashdot to support their page are wrong in your opinion, but your ad for Lemuria Skies in your signature (which presumably does not support the site you posted it on) is somehow OK?</p><p>Wait, I'm confused.  The ads are bad on sites even when they help pay for content, but the ad in your signature is somehow OK even though it doesn't?</p><p>Or are you reserving the right to be the only person allowed to shove "product information" down other people's throats, "willingly or otherwise"?</p><p>Or is this a carefully-crafted example of ironic humor that went way over my head?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so ads served by Slashdot to support their page are wrong in your opinion , but your ad for Lemuria Skies in your signature ( which presumably does not support the site you posted it on ) is somehow OK ? Wait , I 'm confused .
The ads are bad on sites even when they help pay for content , but the ad in your signature is somehow OK even though it does n't ? Or are you reserving the right to be the only person allowed to shove " product information " down other people 's throats , " willingly or otherwise " ? Or is this a carefully-crafted example of ironic humor that went way over my head ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so ads served by Slashdot to support their page are wrong in your opinion, but your ad for Lemuria Skies in your signature (which presumably does not support the site you posted it on) is somehow OK?Wait, I'm confused.
The ads are bad on sites even when they help pay for content, but the ad in your signature is somehow OK even though it doesn't?Or are you reserving the right to be the only person allowed to shove "product information" down other people's throats, "willingly or otherwise"?Or is this a carefully-crafted example of ironic humor that went way over my head?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30484338</id>
	<title>I hate to say it...</title>
	<author>denmarkw00t</author>
	<datestamp>1261167480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but, I kinda like the idea. My friend and I were in the drivethru, probably a Micky D's one day, and I got to thinking: "What if the whole McDonald's was covered in ads!? Advertisements wrapping the building, obscuring windows, constantly changing? Whats that? My combo only cost $1? Why? Oh! Ads offset my meal!" Just like the internet - if a site supported by ads can survive, its not because the site can offer an ad that EVERY SINGLE VISITOR CLICKS, but instead they can ensure that ENOUGH visitors will click. Enough will buy. And, while that doesn't drive insane profits, it does keep the site/company moving, and the goal here is to bring the customers in - even with free* stuff. Once you have the client, then you can charge them more and create a CFL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but , I kinda like the idea .
My friend and I were in the drivethru , probably a Micky D 's one day , and I got to thinking : " What if the whole McDonald 's was covered in ads ! ?
Advertisements wrapping the building , obscuring windows , constantly changing ?
Whats that ?
My combo only cost $ 1 ?
Why ? Oh !
Ads offset my meal !
" Just like the internet - if a site supported by ads can survive , its not because the site can offer an ad that EVERY SINGLE VISITOR CLICKS , but instead they can ensure that ENOUGH visitors will click .
Enough will buy .
And , while that does n't drive insane profits , it does keep the site/company moving , and the goal here is to bring the customers in - even with free * stuff .
Once you have the client , then you can charge them more and create a CFL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but, I kinda like the idea.
My friend and I were in the drivethru, probably a Micky D's one day, and I got to thinking: "What if the whole McDonald's was covered in ads!?
Advertisements wrapping the building, obscuring windows, constantly changing?
Whats that?
My combo only cost $1?
Why? Oh!
Ads offset my meal!
" Just like the internet - if a site supported by ads can survive, its not because the site can offer an ad that EVERY SINGLE VISITOR CLICKS, but instead they can ensure that ENOUGH visitors will click.
Enough will buy.
And, while that doesn't drive insane profits, it does keep the site/company moving, and the goal here is to bring the customers in - even with free* stuff.
Once you have the client, then you can charge them more and create a CFL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478628</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261042800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And <i>your</i> faulty assumption is, "Everyone thinks like I do!".  Most people don't have your wrongheaded philosophical objection to the very concept of advertising</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And your faulty assumption is , " Everyone thinks like I do ! " .
Most people do n't have your wrongheaded philosophical objection to the very concept of advertising</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And your faulty assumption is, "Everyone thinks like I do!".
Most people don't have your wrongheaded philosophical objection to the very concept of advertising</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477312</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>shaper</author>
	<datestamp>1261081200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What sig?  I turned off sig's in my Slashdot preferences a long time ago because I got tired of seeing them.  Yes, I am an aggressive user of ad blocking, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What sig ?
I turned off sig 's in my Slashdot preferences a long time ago because I got tired of seeing them .
Yes , I am an aggressive user of ad blocking , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What sig?
I turned off sig's in my Slashdot preferences a long time ago because I got tired of seeing them.
Yes, I am an aggressive user of ad blocking, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478614</id>
	<title>Re:The very next useful ad I see...</title>
	<author>BryanL</author>
	<datestamp>1261042740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ads are not meant to be useful to you. They are meant to be useful to the company advertising. Most of the time it is just to keep the name of the company fresh in people's minds. The sad fact is that ads do influence people's behavior. Take drug ads. For better or worse, people really do go into their doctor and request medications they have seen in magazines or TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads are not meant to be useful to you .
They are meant to be useful to the company advertising .
Most of the time it is just to keep the name of the company fresh in people 's minds .
The sad fact is that ads do influence people 's behavior .
Take drug ads .
For better or worse , people really do go into their doctor and request medications they have seen in magazines or TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ads are not meant to be useful to you.
They are meant to be useful to the company advertising.
Most of the time it is just to keep the name of the company fresh in people's minds.
The sad fact is that ads do influence people's behavior.
Take drug ads.
For better or worse, people really do go into their doctor and request medications they have seen in magazines or TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474346</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261069320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;  it is the advertisement itself that is the problem.</p><p>I think it's taxes that are the problem!  If I want to be paying money to someone else I'll go give to a charity, not have my money taken from me by force by the government!</p><p>Ads support the free internet, there's no ifs, ands or buts about it.  If you are so opposed to ads that you refuse to have even non-intrusive ones on your page, then you're nothing but a leech.  A worse "parasite" than you describe the marketing people to be.<br>Hosting content costs money.  You don't want to pay?  Get the fuck off the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; it is the advertisement itself that is the problem.I think it 's taxes that are the problem !
If I want to be paying money to someone else I 'll go give to a charity , not have my money taken from me by force by the government ! Ads support the free internet , there 's no ifs , ands or buts about it .
If you are so opposed to ads that you refuse to have even non-intrusive ones on your page , then you 're nothing but a leech .
A worse " parasite " than you describe the marketing people to be.Hosting content costs money .
You do n't want to pay ?
Get the fuck off the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;  it is the advertisement itself that is the problem.I think it's taxes that are the problem!
If I want to be paying money to someone else I'll go give to a charity, not have my money taken from me by force by the government!Ads support the free internet, there's no ifs, ands or buts about it.
If you are so opposed to ads that you refuse to have even non-intrusive ones on your page, then you're nothing but a leech.
A worse "parasite" than you describe the marketing people to be.Hosting content costs money.
You don't want to pay?
Get the fuck off the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473532</id>
	<title>Ah!</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1261066200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"It's unlikely that ad blockers will get to the level where they imperil the advertising market, because if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising needs to get less annoying.</p></div><p>Ah! A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Koan</a> [wikipedia.org] for my AM meditation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's unlikely that ad blockers will get to the level where they imperil the advertising market , because if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it , then advertising needs to get less annoying.Ah !
A Koan [ wikipedia.org ] for my AM meditation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's unlikely that ad blockers will get to the level where they imperil the advertising market, because if advertising is so annoying that a large segment of the population wants to block it, then advertising needs to get less annoying.Ah!
A Koan [wikipedia.org] for my AM meditation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473648</id>
	<title>No Problem</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1261066620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no problem with unobtrusive ads that aren't all flashing animation and sound and which do not slow down my system with their overblown Flash garbage. If it does not interfere with my use of the web, I'm fine with them.<br> <br>
Until advertisers start delivering those ads, I'll keep using adblock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no problem with unobtrusive ads that are n't all flashing animation and sound and which do not slow down my system with their overblown Flash garbage .
If it does not interfere with my use of the web , I 'm fine with them .
Until advertisers start delivering those ads , I 'll keep using adblock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no problem with unobtrusive ads that aren't all flashing animation and sound and which do not slow down my system with their overblown Flash garbage.
If it does not interfere with my use of the web, I'm fine with them.
Until advertisers start delivering those ads, I'll keep using adblock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478224</id>
	<title>Re:Old behavioral experiment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261041180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello my friend. My name is Ungudu, I am the crown prince of Sierra Leone. Your words seem really wise to me, i have a great business proposal for you, just contact me at ads\_suck@spam.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello my friend .
My name is Ungudu , I am the crown prince of Sierra Leone .
Your words seem really wise to me , i have a great business proposal for you , just contact me at ads \ _suck @ spam.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello my friend.
My name is Ungudu, I am the crown prince of Sierra Leone.
Your words seem really wise to me, i have a great business proposal for you, just contact me at ads\_suck@spam.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478132</id>
	<title>Adorable</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1261040760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh google, you're so adorable. Everyone come pet the cute and innocent puppy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh google , you 're so adorable .
Everyone come pet the cute and innocent puppy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh google, you're so adorable.
Everyone come pet the cute and innocent puppy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30479392</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>jfitz369</author>
	<datestamp>1261045440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what if you don't know a product exists? How would you know to look for it? How would the seller get the word out? Advertising serves a roll in a capitalist society. It's just part of the deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what if you do n't know a product exists ?
How would you know to look for it ?
How would the seller get the word out ?
Advertising serves a roll in a capitalist society .
It 's just part of the deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what if you don't know a product exists?
How would you know to look for it?
How would the seller get the word out?
Advertising serves a roll in a capitalist society.
It's just part of the deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476928</id>
	<title>I don't use AdBlock</title>
	<author>Pecisk</author>
	<datestamp>1261079820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because non-Flash ads are usually less intrusive and annoying (read: less flashy smooth movements), so Google have some truth in this; also GIF animations can be turned off. I don't care about text ads, because they are usually very low-key.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because non-Flash ads are usually less intrusive and annoying ( read : less flashy smooth movements ) , so Google have some truth in this ; also GIF animations can be turned off .
I do n't care about text ads , because they are usually very low-key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because non-Flash ads are usually less intrusive and annoying (read: less flashy smooth movements), so Google have some truth in this; also GIF animations can be turned off.
I don't care about text ads, because they are usually very low-key.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475604</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261074660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ads are not the issue. Chrome, gphone, the ads themselves, gmail, google earth, and everything else Google gives you for "free" are designed to learn about you so they can manipulate you into buying things/voting for things.</p><p>Anyone who thinks this is a good thing or that privacy is quaint has already been trained to be a good consumer/republican/democrat.</p><p>Try the soylent green, it's in season, and the chef here does wonders with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads are not the issue .
Chrome , gphone , the ads themselves , gmail , google earth , and everything else Google gives you for " free " are designed to learn about you so they can manipulate you into buying things/voting for things.Anyone who thinks this is a good thing or that privacy is quaint has already been trained to be a good consumer/republican/democrat.Try the soylent green , it 's in season , and the chef here does wonders with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ads are not the issue.
Chrome, gphone, the ads themselves, gmail, google earth, and everything else Google gives you for "free" are designed to learn about you so they can manipulate you into buying things/voting for things.Anyone who thinks this is a good thing or that privacy is quaint has already been trained to be a good consumer/republican/democrat.Try the soylent green, it's in season, and the chef here does wonders with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473918</id>
	<title>When are ads a good thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In what other medium are the ads actually useful and value added to your experience?  Now that I have a DVR that can easily remove the ads actually watching commercial TV is brutally painful.  The ads in magazines don't augment the stories at all, they are just the filler that makes the magazine 100 pages instead of 12.</p><p>Ads may be a necessary evil for a medium's survival, but that doesn't mean we as consumers like them or appreciate them as Google is asserting.  In this day of internet product researching, ads mean less and less to me every year.</p><p>Sheldon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In what other medium are the ads actually useful and value added to your experience ?
Now that I have a DVR that can easily remove the ads actually watching commercial TV is brutally painful .
The ads in magazines do n't augment the stories at all , they are just the filler that makes the magazine 100 pages instead of 12.Ads may be a necessary evil for a medium 's survival , but that does n't mean we as consumers like them or appreciate them as Google is asserting .
In this day of internet product researching , ads mean less and less to me every year.Sheldon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what other medium are the ads actually useful and value added to your experience?
Now that I have a DVR that can easily remove the ads actually watching commercial TV is brutally painful.
The ads in magazines don't augment the stories at all, they are just the filler that makes the magazine 100 pages instead of 12.Ads may be a necessary evil for a medium's survival, but that doesn't mean we as consumers like them or appreciate them as Google is asserting.
In this day of internet product researching, ads mean less and less to me every year.Sheldon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475066</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261072320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He was just being ironical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He was just being ironical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He was just being ironical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473758</id>
	<title>The saying goes</title>
	<author>MassiveForces</author>
	<datestamp>1261067040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer. All this will do is allow chrome to compete against firefox even more and once they reach a dominant market position they will have the power to invent ads that cannot be stopped. Yes, root for the underdog, as long as it stays the underdog.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep your friends close , and your enemies even closer .
All this will do is allow chrome to compete against firefox even more and once they reach a dominant market position they will have the power to invent ads that can not be stopped .
Yes , root for the underdog , as long as it stays the underdog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.
All this will do is allow chrome to compete against firefox even more and once they reach a dominant market position they will have the power to invent ads that cannot be stopped.
Yes, root for the underdog, as long as it stays the underdog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474296</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>Pharmboy</author>
	<datestamp>1261069080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em> don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use. I don't want to see your crap. If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google. The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.</em></p><p>Then expect to pay for content behind a paywall or expect it to disappear.  The only thing that pays for all those pretty words and do-clickys that you WANT to see is the advertisers betting you might click their ad to buy a product.  Without advertisers taking that bet, the publishers have no funds to pay staff, and there is no content.  Whether you like it or not isn't a function of how capitalism works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't give a heck about what you 're advertising for , nor what style , images , words , whatever you use .
I do n't want to see your crap .
If I need " product information " , I will find it - ironically - on Google .
The difference is that I 'll be looking for it , instead of getting it shoved down my throat , willingly or otherwise.Then expect to pay for content behind a paywall or expect it to disappear .
The only thing that pays for all those pretty words and do-clickys that you WANT to see is the advertisers betting you might click their ad to buy a product .
Without advertisers taking that bet , the publishers have no funds to pay staff , and there is no content .
Whether you like it or not is n't a function of how capitalism works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> don't give a heck about what you're advertising for, nor what style, images, words, whatever you use.
I don't want to see your crap.
If I need "product information", I will find it - ironically - on Google.
The difference is that I'll be looking for it, instead of getting it shoved down my throat, willingly or otherwise.Then expect to pay for content behind a paywall or expect it to disappear.
The only thing that pays for all those pretty words and do-clickys that you WANT to see is the advertisers betting you might click their ad to buy a product.
Without advertisers taking that bet, the publishers have no funds to pay staff, and there is no content.
Whether you like it or not isn't a function of how capitalism works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475388</id>
	<title>Re:wrong assumption</title>
	<author>arthurh3535</author>
	<datestamp>1261073760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it isn't that 'ads are bad' that is the problem. It's the fact that right now, ads are just a vehicle to be used by criminals to try and take over my computer.<br> <br>If I didn't have to worry about ads infecting my computer with viruses and other malware, I could handle minor to moderate ads on web pages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is n't that 'ads are bad ' that is the problem .
It 's the fact that right now , ads are just a vehicle to be used by criminals to try and take over my computer .
If I did n't have to worry about ads infecting my computer with viruses and other malware , I could handle minor to moderate ads on web pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it isn't that 'ads are bad' that is the problem.
It's the fact that right now, ads are just a vehicle to be used by criminals to try and take over my computer.
If I didn't have to worry about ads infecting my computer with viruses and other malware, I could handle minor to moderate ads on web pages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474236</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>bit01</author>
	<datestamp>1261068840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>Most people are OK with Ad's on some level.</em> </p><p>Yes, the ad's that don't work.</p><p>The entire point of an unsolicited ad is to grab a person's attention. If it doesn't do that then it's not working. And a person's attention is valuable to them.</p><p>If an ad "pays" for the attention in some way (e.g. entertaining or actual useful information and not spam) then it might be okay but almost no advertising does that.</p><p>---</p><p> <em>The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".</em> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people are OK with Ad 's on some level .
Yes , the ad 's that do n't work.The entire point of an unsolicited ad is to grab a person 's attention .
If it does n't do that then it 's not working .
And a person 's attention is valuable to them.If an ad " pays " for the attention in some way ( e.g .
entertaining or actual useful information and not spam ) then it might be okay but almost no advertising does that.--- The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share .
Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing " industry " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Most people are OK with Ad's on some level.
Yes, the ad's that don't work.The entire point of an unsolicited ad is to grab a person's attention.
If it doesn't do that then it's not working.
And a person's attention is valuable to them.If an ad "pays" for the attention in some way (e.g.
entertaining or actual useful information and not spam) then it might be okay but almost no advertising does that.--- The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share.
Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry". </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474360</id>
	<title>Re:If you're as good at it as Google</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1261069320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm using AdBlockPlus. It's great.
</p><p>But reading this article I recalled that some time ago I actually disabled ABP specifically for Google.com. This as I was searching for something to buy or so, and I missed the ads. When searching for commercial services I very often click those ads: they often offer exactly what I am looking for. The ad-results sometimes suit me better than the normal search results - the normal results are more non-commercial in nature. That's not good if you are looking for commercial sites.
</p><p>So indeed Google doesn't have to be afraid. Not at all. Text ads on their site I like, really. Text ads in other people's blogs I don't care about (those are usually not relevant to me, or just not interesting).
</p><p>And I have of course Flashblock. Click to play. That's one of the most important extensions to Firefox, really couldn't do without. No ABP? Too bad (flashblock takes care of the most irritating ads already anyway). No Flashblock? Disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using AdBlockPlus .
It 's great .
But reading this article I recalled that some time ago I actually disabled ABP specifically for Google.com .
This as I was searching for something to buy or so , and I missed the ads .
When searching for commercial services I very often click those ads : they often offer exactly what I am looking for .
The ad-results sometimes suit me better than the normal search results - the normal results are more non-commercial in nature .
That 's not good if you are looking for commercial sites .
So indeed Google does n't have to be afraid .
Not at all .
Text ads on their site I like , really .
Text ads in other people 's blogs I do n't care about ( those are usually not relevant to me , or just not interesting ) .
And I have of course Flashblock .
Click to play .
That 's one of the most important extensions to Firefox , really could n't do without .
No ABP ?
Too bad ( flashblock takes care of the most irritating ads already anyway ) .
No Flashblock ?
Disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using AdBlockPlus.
It's great.
But reading this article I recalled that some time ago I actually disabled ABP specifically for Google.com.
This as I was searching for something to buy or so, and I missed the ads.
When searching for commercial services I very often click those ads: they often offer exactly what I am looking for.
The ad-results sometimes suit me better than the normal search results - the normal results are more non-commercial in nature.
That's not good if you are looking for commercial sites.
So indeed Google doesn't have to be afraid.
Not at all.
Text ads on their site I like, really.
Text ads in other people's blogs I don't care about (those are usually not relevant to me, or just not interesting).
And I have of course Flashblock.
Click to play.
That's one of the most important extensions to Firefox, really couldn't do without.
No ABP?
Too bad (flashblock takes care of the most irritating ads already anyway).
No Flashblock?
Disaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473528</id>
	<title>Ads? What ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are *ads* on the web? I haven't seen one in years!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are * ads * on the web ?
I have n't seen one in years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are *ads* on the web?
I haven't seen one in years!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478028</id>
	<title>Re:A good thing</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1261040460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I would be ok with the occasional banner ad or something along those lines, but we all know that for every advertiser that attempts to play nicely, a dozen others will come up with some new obnoxious ad.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is exactly why I block all ads. If advertisers can all agree on <a href="http://www.iab.net/iab\_products\_and\_industry\_services/1421/1443/1452" title="iab.net">standards for ad width, height, and placement</a> [iab.net] then they can also agree to acceptable behavior for ads (no sounds, flashing, etc). Since they have refused to the the latter, I block all ads because some advertisers cross the line with annoyance. What is the saying in English? One bad apple spoils the barrel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be ok with the occasional banner ad or something along those lines , but we all know that for every advertiser that attempts to play nicely , a dozen others will come up with some new obnoxious ad.This is exactly why I block all ads .
If advertisers can all agree on standards for ad width , height , and placement [ iab.net ] then they can also agree to acceptable behavior for ads ( no sounds , flashing , etc ) .
Since they have refused to the the latter , I block all ads because some advertisers cross the line with annoyance .
What is the saying in English ?
One bad apple spoils the barrel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be ok with the occasional banner ad or something along those lines, but we all know that for every advertiser that attempts to play nicely, a dozen others will come up with some new obnoxious ad.This is exactly why I block all ads.
If advertisers can all agree on standards for ad width, height, and placement [iab.net] then they can also agree to acceptable behavior for ads (no sounds, flashing, etc).
Since they have refused to the the latter, I block all ads because some advertisers cross the line with annoyance.
What is the saying in English?
One bad apple spoils the barrel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473982</id>
	<title>The very next useful ad I see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>will be my first.  I have seen some entertaining ads (for example during the Super Bowl), but never one I considered useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>will be my first .
I have seen some entertaining ads ( for example during the Super Bowl ) , but never one I considered useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will be my first.
I have seen some entertaining ads (for example during the Super Bowl), but never one I considered useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473892</id>
	<title>Re:Kick the Pig to Win an iPOD * FLASH * FLASH *</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261067460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6. No ads pretending to be elements of the site they appear on, such as a big "Download" button which gives you crapware instead of the file you were looking for...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6 .
No ads pretending to be elements of the site they appear on , such as a big " Download " button which gives you crapware instead of the file you were looking for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6.
No ads pretending to be elements of the site they appear on, such as a big "Download" button which gives you crapware instead of the file you were looking for...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476394</id>
	<title>Google have a point here</title>
	<author>SpaghettiPattern</author>
	<datestamp>1261077960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The more intrusive an add, the less likely I am to consider it seriously.<br> <br>

Google have a point here and I hope it will catch on at upper management who will communicate to middle management its endless wisdom.<br> <br>

I have never ever felt the urge to do about Google adds. "Eye catching" images or flash thingies piss me off completely and hence get blocked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The more intrusive an add , the less likely I am to consider it seriously .
Google have a point here and I hope it will catch on at upper management who will communicate to middle management its endless wisdom .
I have never ever felt the urge to do about Google adds .
" Eye catching " images or flash thingies piss me off completely and hence get blocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more intrusive an add, the less likely I am to consider it seriously.
Google have a point here and I hope it will catch on at upper management who will communicate to middle management its endless wisdom.
I have never ever felt the urge to do about Google adds.
"Eye catching" images or flash thingies piss me off completely and hence get blocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473662</id>
	<title>They're right for the wrong reason.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people don't use ad blockers, that's why they're not worried.</p><p>There's no difference between online advertising, tv adveritising or radio advertising. It's in your face (in one way or another) and after a while, people just don't want it. Why else do radio stations make a big deal about "no ads from 9am to 10am"? TV ads become toilet, food, etc, breaks. My folks spend most of their time watching the government TV station that has no ads.</p><p>If the executives at Google really think that netizens (in general) will come to the conclusion that online advertising is a good thing then the company is already doomed.</p><p>If all Firefox installs came bundled with AdBlock enabled by default, I wonder if the attitude towards advertising would change when people realise just how different the Internet is without it.</p><p>p.s. Until Chrome has Cookie management built in, I ain't using it for anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people do n't use ad blockers , that 's why they 're not worried.There 's no difference between online advertising , tv adveritising or radio advertising .
It 's in your face ( in one way or another ) and after a while , people just do n't want it .
Why else do radio stations make a big deal about " no ads from 9am to 10am " ?
TV ads become toilet , food , etc , breaks .
My folks spend most of their time watching the government TV station that has no ads.If the executives at Google really think that netizens ( in general ) will come to the conclusion that online advertising is a good thing then the company is already doomed.If all Firefox installs came bundled with AdBlock enabled by default , I wonder if the attitude towards advertising would change when people realise just how different the Internet is without it.p.s .
Until Chrome has Cookie management built in , I ai n't using it for anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people don't use ad blockers, that's why they're not worried.There's no difference between online advertising, tv adveritising or radio advertising.
It's in your face (in one way or another) and after a while, people just don't want it.
Why else do radio stations make a big deal about "no ads from 9am to 10am"?
TV ads become toilet, food, etc, breaks.
My folks spend most of their time watching the government TV station that has no ads.If the executives at Google really think that netizens (in general) will come to the conclusion that online advertising is a good thing then the company is already doomed.If all Firefox installs came bundled with AdBlock enabled by default, I wonder if the attitude towards advertising would change when people realise just how different the Internet is without it.p.s.
Until Chrome has Cookie management built in, I ain't using it for anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30479528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30503208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30484756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30492274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30483756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30480712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30479392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30512518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30480684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_1436257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30503208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474104
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30512518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30479528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30480712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30479392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474236
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476690
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475776
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474838
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474902
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30483756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30484756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30492274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30474276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30480684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30477344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30475596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30478614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30476098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_1436257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_1436257.30473764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
