Comments on: DoubleClick gets slammed

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 31 Jul 2004 15:38:44 +0000

BUT they are used for tracking purposes e.g. you may even have to pay more for some items (ironically) because you have a specific cookie, also some cookies will get you banned from some professional organisation websites, and some lazy developers leave easy to read confidental information in cookies aka identify theft risk!

Get a clue newbie!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:54:21 +0000

lol since when did “cookies” become “spyware” puhleeze. cookies don’t do damage to computers.

*major eye roll*

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 20:12:26 +0000

In a day when the Internet is free to all and computer parts are free is when the Internet will not require the use of advertisments.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:28:27 +0000

Come on, doubleCllick is and ad company… ads are the curse of the internet most of the time, not the blessing. Besides that company is known for rather questionable ethics — ins not like the honest guys got slammed. http://www.tomkitta.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:56:07 +0000

i hoped they hijacked my pc to give them some of their own junk back….
thanks

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 06:40:57 +0000

its really unskilled script kiddies….

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 02:18:32 +0000

What’s amazing is: the advertising is effective, or DD clients wouldn’t spend their money on it.

Or maybe advertisers think the Net’s like TV and/or radio – like, you see and hear whether you want to or not (unless you have Tivo heh).

Maybe DoubleClick advertisers don’t know significant amounts of their garbage is blocked by one means or another and never sees the light of the internet day.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 02:04:59 +0000

It’s not about slowing down the internet. It’s about doing something about all of the advertising on the internet.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 02:03:26 +0000

That’s awesome

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:36:09 +0000

The obnoxious amounts of internet advertising have never influenced me. That 95% of the internet deserves to taste what it dishes out, which is valueable time wasted wading through counter-productive crap.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:29:13 +0000

“The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.” – Sounds like DoubleClick is a terrorist!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:23:20 +0000

hell yeah they deserve it!! spam and spyware distributers deserve everything we can throw at them, and then some… it’s the spyware/spammer losers that are really slowing down our internet. Do you know how many computers i fix every month because of spyware? As far as i’m concerned, spyware is a virus… even antivirus companies are starting to include spyware in their scan databases.

Screw doubleclick! I hope they go out of business and end up living in a cardboard box.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:17:07 +0000

Terrorism:

Hmm., I looked up the defenition of this work on Dictionary.com when 9/11 occured. This wasn’t what I recall the defenition to be. Time to get out my hardcopy of the dictionary. I thought it had to be related to attacks on foreign governments. Guess not.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:14:04 +0000

For those who don’t get it, the 127.0.0.4 is for use in a hosts file. While I’m not the author of that comment, I do endorse it…if that’s what he/she was talking about. Though I would use 127.0.0.1 for standards sake. read up on this at http://www.computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/forum/158896.html

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:13:09 +0000

Terrorism? Whats so terrifying about it?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:07:10 +0000

So you wanna be a terrorist?

I don’t like DoubleClick either — that’s why I use a blocking program. But if we start saying that it’s okay to shut down people we don’t like, that’s a form of terrorism. A mild form, but terrorism, nonetheless.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:05:33 +0000

DoubleClick *deserves* it?!!

So you think that if you dislike someone, it’s all right for them to be the target of an illegal attack that shuts down their business?

That’s a form of terrorism, you know.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:56:03 +0000

Check out the free browser from mozilla ( http://www.mozilla.org )
It allows you to optionally not load banner ads and has a preinstalled
popup blocker. Once you load a page, you right click on the banner
and hit the option ‘block images from this server’. It’s a lot less
vulnerable to virii, browser tricks, and worms.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:53:57 +0000

That is a wonderful idea, why didn’t I think of that?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:40:20 +0000

it’s sad they had to use hi-jacked computers… i’d gladly donate my 3GHz processor and 2mbit connection to help bring down sites like doubleclick