WhenU.com Enjoined From Competing Pop-Ups 148
Frisky070802 writes "The NY Times reports that a preliminary injunction has been issued against WhenU.com, a company that distributes software that performs certain tasks for users but also intercepts their website visits so that, for instance, a visitor to Expedia would see a pop-up ad for Orbitz. Now if only we could get rid of all the rest of the pop-up ads."
Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:3, Informative)
If I'm going to have some stupid something sitting my windows toolbar section, it might as well do some useful stuff--search google, block pop-ups, and give me pagerank.
I love free software.
Davak
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:5, Insightful)
The non-geeks have a difficult time understanding the whole concept. But if you solve a very visible problem for them, like pop-ups, you earn a chance to tell them why mozilla exists. Don't beat them on the head with it (i.e. don't preach), just feed them a little. Next time they have a problem, they'll come back for more.
So while pop-ups are a curse for your average folk, we geeks can make a little use out of the situation.
jef
Mod Parent Up (Score:1)
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:1)
IE is to get a pop-up blocker in XP SP 2 (Score:2, Informative)
Re:IE is to get a pop-up blocker in XP SP 2 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:3, Funny)
"I don't want Mozilla, I want the internet!"
*sigh*
I just installed mozilla anyway and made the Internet Explorer and Outlook Express icons launch moz instead.
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:2)
It is also easier to allow popups from specific sites in Mozilla. Throw in the Flash Click To View [mozdev.org] extension and you've eliminated a great deal of the annoying crap that comes along with surfing the web.
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:2)
Only way to get rid of it is to disable javascript all-together, and you can do that with any browser (Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Firebird, Opera, Navigator, etc.)
Re:Shamless Mozilla plug (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Shamless Mozilla plug (Score:4, Interesting)
You can hide the Google toolbar so it doesn't take up any real estate. And if it is resource (memory, CPU) usage you're worried about, well XUL and other bits of Netscape add a lot more resource usage than the Google toolbar does to IE.
Note: I have nothing against Mozilla, it is a fine browser, but the 'nothng extra' statement regarding the google toolbar was kind of silly.
Re:Shamless Mozilla plug (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Shamless Mozilla plug (Score:1, Interesting)
Use keyword-bookmarks or Mozilla's URL-bar search feature.
Make a bookmark for "http://www.google.com/search?q=%s&btnG=Google+Sea rch" (without the Slashdot generated space and the quotes)
Assign a keyword (g, for example)
Whenever you want to google: "keyword what you're looking for" (g paris hilton)
Or just type what you're looking for, press cursor-up, press enter (if you're using Mozilla, have this feature enabled and chosen your favorite search engine in the preferences).
Re:Shamless Mozilla plug (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%s will do.
Re:Shamless Mozilla plug (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Shamless Mozilla plug (Score:2)
So, no wonder it can use Mozilla plugins :)
Re:Shamless Mozilla plug (Score:2)
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:2, Insightful)
Same method, completely different use.
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:5, Informative)
Different method, completely different use.
Misinformation (Score:3, Interesting)
2) slightly off topic, but their popups and spyware sends are not blocked by the google toolbar. I saw a computer that had google toolbar, with 8 popups blocked (yuppie!) but outside popups were not. The owner had like software popups outside of IE popping up every 10 seconds so much he installed googles toolbar just because of that. Imagine how much business google gets because of the spyware business, as googletoolbar is the most wel
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:2)
spyware != free (Score:2)
If you're using pagerank then the googlebar is spyware. If you consider your private browsing habits to have worth then it is no longer free, but subsidized by the data you generate as a web user.
On the bright side, you can download a version of the toolbar without pagerank and no tracking will be done. That's the version I install on people's computers. You're either for or against spyware in my book, there really is no middle-ground. I'm afraid the old truism is true, and as g
Re:spyware != free (Score:2)
Even though many pieces of spyware 'inform' you of their presence though obscure EULAs or deceptive tricks, I still consider this without their knowledge.
While I haven't downloaded the to
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:1)
As much as I like Google, their popup blocker does not work terribly well. It will ocasionally let popups through, which really should not happen.
I always liked Meaya Popup Ad Filter [meaya.com] which works a lot better, but I'd have to agree with the Mozilla crowd, why pay for that if you can get it for free?
Btw. I don't think software has to be free, but $25.- for a popup killer is just too much, like $20.- for a music CD or $200.- for M$ Office is...
Re:Shamless google pop-up blocker plug (Score:1)
In Windows, if you don't use Firebird, you can use myIE2 (http://www.myie2), which uses the Internet Explorer rendering engine, and adds lots of features (tabs, content filter, mouse gestures, and of course, popups blocking)
When U... (Score:3, Funny)
WhenU wish upon a star... (Score:5, Funny)
star bright
first star I see tonight
I wish I may
I wish I might
see all spammers and pop-up software writers be sent directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.
That is scheduled for... (Score:5, Insightful)
We are scheduled to get rid of pop-up ads right after we deal with SPAM once and for all.
Don't hold your breath, please.
Re:That is scheduled for... (Score:2)
Isn't the problem already solved? I'm using Mozilla (galeon actually) and I'm only reminded popups still exist when I have to use a Windows machine that only has IE (not very often). I may have missed something, but it would seem like the SPAM problem is much further from being solved.
Re:That is scheduled for... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:That is scheduled for... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That is scheduled for... (Score:1)
Re:That is scheduled for... (Score:2)
I'm guessing that since you made that plural you don't fully understand how the aliasing concept works.
And since you said that, you don't understand how spammers get email addresses -- Hint: it's not by magic.
Email aliasing works. I'm sure it's harder for a company than an individual, but the "problems" you list aren't problems. The aliases all manage themselves
Here, there, everywhere! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here, there, everywhere! (Score:2)
Hey! we at DHS/NSA care about users! We CARE what they read, where they go, what they buy, what they say on their cellphone, what is in their email, how often they download communism in the form of linux, what color their underware is
**Snap!**
Damn I hate it when that happens......
This is illegal.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is illegal.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I install KaZaA - God help me if that day ever comes! - I expect it to find me music. I don't expect its bundled programs to also "reach [me] at the exact moment [I] express an interest in [some advertiser's] product. [whenu.com]"
Speaking of which, if I go to expedia.com, I'm not expressing an interest in orbitz.com's product! I'm expressing an interest in Expedia.
I can see both sides of the issue here, and for once it's actually difficult for me to take sides in an issue that involves advertising (usually it's a no-brainer). I still find myself siding against WhenU, though. EULA or no EULA, their practices are sneaky and underhanded. The article claims that between Gator and WhenU, more than 30 million people are infec^Wusing this software. How many of them do you think have any fucking clue it's installed, and of those, how many have the slightest idea how to get rid of it?
for the lazy (Score:3, Informative)
By BOB TEDESCHI
Published: January 5, 2004
JUST when some federal courts seemed unwilling to find fault with a controversial type of pop-up Web advertising, a federal judge in New York has called at least a temporary timeout on one version of the advertisements.
Late last month the judge, Deborah A. Batts of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued a preliminary injunction that bars the advertising software company WhenU.com from displaying pop-ups and other types of online advertisements for VisionDirect.com when visitors go to 1-800 Contacts.com, a competing Web site.
The decision is the latest twist in a battle between WhenU and more than a dozen companies that object to its advertising techniques. Many more companies are closely watching the fight to determine whether they, too, should sue WhenU and its closest competitor, the Claria Corporation, or simply sign up as advertisers.
Opponents of WhenU's and Claria's advertising approach compare it to hijacking customers after they have entered a store. The techniques differ from the conventional pop-up advertisements, as when the travel company Orbitz.com pays publishers to have its ads pop up on readers' screens.
With WhenU's and Claria's services, for example, Orbitz would pay to have its ads pop up with Web surfers visiting the competing site Expedia.com - as in fact happened last week when visitors arrived at Expedia.com.
In such a case, Orbitz has an opportunity to lure a prospective Expedia customer from Expedia's own site. For this to work, WhenU and Claria must have the Web surfer's complicity. Each company has distributed its software to more than 30 million Internet users. The free software helps users accomplish various tasks online, whether it be filling out address forms or checking weather forecasts.
In exchange for these free services, users agree to let a piece of software track their activity as they surf the Web. (In some cases, this software is bundled not with software from WhenU or Claria, but with free software from other companies, like the file-sharing service providers Kazaa and BearShare.) It it this tracking software that enables WhenU or Claria to display a competitors' ads when users visit various sites.
Online companies have fought WhenU and Claria in the courts for the last three years, usually claiming that their pop-up ads violate federal copyright and trademark laws by disrupting the display of the plaintiffs' Web sites and by unjustly using their trademark to sell advertising, among other complaints.
But WhenU registered several legal victories in the second half of 2003, beginning with a decision in July by a federal district court in Virginia. In that case, the court rejected the argument of U-Haul that WhenU's ads on behalf of its competitors infringed U-Haul's copyrights and trademarks.
In October, Internet retailers Overstock.com and TigerDirect.com dropped suits against WhenU. In November, Federal District Court Judge Nancy G. Edmunds, in Detroit, denied Wells Fargo's request for a preliminary injunction in its suit against WhenU. Judge Edmunds ruled that Wells Fargo was not likely to prevail on its claims of copyright and trademark infringement.
The judge said that WhenU did not use Wells Fargo's trademark, per se, in its advertising, since the pop-ups themselves did not display those trademarks. No trial date has yet been set for the case.
Judge Batts, in New York, made a different judgment in issuing her preliminary injunction against WhenU. She noted that WhenU places the 1-800 Contacts.com Web address in an internal database that is used to trigger the display of competitors' ads. That, she wrote, violates the Lanham Act's trademark protections, because WhenU has used the trademark of 1-800 Contacts in a way that is likely to cause consumer confusion. Specifically, Judge Batts wrote, consumers could be confused about the connection between
Re:for the lazy (Score:1)
No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/
It seems to take care of the adware kazaa installs, and most others.
Reccomended for every windows user, should be "mandatory" like antivirus software.
Re:No problem (Score:5, Informative)
1. Run slow (its your connection!!!)
2. Boot slow (damn [ISP] software!)
3. GP error (Must be [ISP]'s fault - I didn't install anything!)
etc etc...
Simply disabling the "Enable Third-Party Browser extensions (requires restart)" option 'sometimes' fixes the issue, but being the root of all evil is the browser and the spyware embedded in the registry, most fixes are temporary until you get to the FORMAT C: prompt once again.
However I do hear yor pain, and FINALLY a firewall enabled by default in SP2 (XP's firewall is disabled by default), popup blockers in IE, and warnings when a program is attempting to install itself into your browser is one hell of a great start on improving the state of the nation. I am personally looking forward to supporting the original issues that I was paid to support - namely the CONNECTION.
With all those, all you need is a decent Anti-Virus software and a little luser education and they are set.
Rant is over. Move along.. nothing left to see here...
Re:No problem (Score:1)
Each miss a little and find stuff the other misses. I regularly run both, even using non-ms browsers/mail clients there is a good deal of crap isntalled, each finding a good dael of ad-ware or tracking devices.
Controversial statement of the hour (Score:3, Insightful)
Weak software brings about this crap. Start at the base.
Re:Controversial statement of the hour (Score:2)
The other thing I really hate is when you have to click a popup. You can't open-in-new-window, or you just get an error page with a javascript popup statement in the url field. Highly annoying.
Get Rid Of Pop-Up Ads? (Score:3, Informative)
I use Mozilla [mozilla.org], and haven't seen a pop-up in a very long time. In fact, I haven't seen any Flash (which I hate) either.
-cp-
Alaska Bugs Sweat Gold Nuggets [alaska-freegold.com]
Re:Get Rid Of Pop-Up Ads? (Score:1)
I think it's more that many home users install crap (whenu.com software, toolbars, search helpers, malware crap).
I use SpyBot S&D to scan for malware and the like. Usually I find mostly tracking cookies on my computers, but I find loads of crappy malware on my families' computers.
Pron dialers will not give you free pron.
Re:Get Rid Of Pop-Up Ads? (Score:2)
Not much of help for users of most of Linux hardware platforms. The only Linux arch where flash works (somehow) is x86.
It just reminds me how low the internet has gotten (Score:5, Interesting)
How can we take it back? If we can't, how can we replace it with something more resistant to these electronic malignancies?
I want instant communication with friends and colleagues all over the planet, but I don't want UCE. I want instant access to the world's knowledge on all topics, from crucial news to movie trivia, but I want it without viruses, interstitial ads, popups, spyware, and all that other crap.
By using Linux with some other specialized software, I have erected a defensive perimeter around my internet existence, so the tidal wave of garbage largely passes me by. But the walls need maintenance, and there always seems to be some new leak that needs plugging.
It's regrettable that we need to take such drastic measures, but what really worries me is that the need is increasing with time. Can you imagine the situation where 99% of your email is spam? Is there an alternative to giving up email entirely at that point?
Re:It just reminds me how low the internet has got (Score:2)
I don't need to imagine. On one of my email accounts, 99% of the messages *are* spam. Fortunately Mozilla's Bayesian filter means I only get to see the 5% or so that slip through.
So there is your alternative.
Re:It just reminds me how low the internet has got (Score:2)
The internet gets more and more VALUABLE to me everyday, as the amount of news, information, opinion, and opportunity keeps growing incrementally. Yes, some of that growth is commercial activity, and some of THAT is undesirable crap, but I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Re:It just reminds me how low the internet has got (Score:2, Interesting)
Your comment reminds me of how great it is (Score:3, Insightful)
The internet seems to become more useful every day, as more and more commercial interests make their wares available to me, provide me with web interfaces to common tasks like checking balances and reporting problems (even SBC has email trouble reporting now.)
How can we take it back? WTF are you talking about, it's ours already. We vote with our dollars. People obviously want to be spammed, because they're buying things from spammers. Remember, the majority rules.
I want instant communications with fr
While I personally wouldn't install such software (Score:3, Interesting)
All kidding aside though and to be serious, what right does a court have to block how software the user installed interacts with said user? If the court rules against WhenU in this case, what stops a multitude of lawsuits from being filed because Company X doesn't like how Company Y's software interacts on Average Joe's home computer? I swear, the US is getting WAAY too litigation happy, especially on such tech issues.
Now while I can certainly understand the affected companies concerns (I work for one of the plaintifs), I simply think the courts have no moral right, let alone legal grounds, to step into this sort of situation.
To say it plainly, if it's MY computer, I'll install what I choose, and if I'm not happy, I know exactly where the uninstall is located. I think the consumer should be able to decide for themselves what software to install and how it interacts with the rest of my system - I don't need mommy & daddy to decide for me......
Argh... I could go on for a while here.......
Re:While I personally wouldn't install such softwa (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but I have suspected them of using an IE exploit to install their client without the user's knowledge or consent. I can't prove it, of course, and I'd imagine it would be a big stink if it were true (e.g., felony computer crime for each violation, one would think.)
They don't literally force anyone to install their software, but they certainly do it clandestinely and without a clear affirmative decision made by the user. It doesn't fall in the same category as literally holding a gun to the user's head, but that doesn't make it ok.
"To say it plainly, if it's MY computer, I'll install what I choose, and if I'm not happy, I know exactly where the uninstall is located."
This kind of spyware sneaks in. And without a certain amount of knowledge, such as knowing the registry inside and out, they are very hard to remove. I don't need help with this stuff either, but I know a thing or two about computers. That does not diminish my concern for a victim who cannot say that.
So instead of holding a gun to your head and making you talk, they sneak into your apartment while you're at work and bug the place. Does that make you feel better?
Re:While I personally wouldn't install such softwa (Score:2)
Why do companies get away with writing viruses? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is controversial whether EULAs even constitute a legal contract.
Why should companies get away writing software that if a script kiddy did he would be put in prison, or at least get a criminal trial?
Once software starts hijacking your computer then it is entering the realm of viruses. Among other things this definition should include being unable to uninstall the software without re-i
Re:While I personally wouldn't install such softwa (Score:2)
When I was using IE with the default security settings, I found WHenU had "magically" installed itself on my PC without even prompting me. More than once.
To say it plainly, if it's MY computer, I'll install what I choose, and if I'm not happy, I know exactly where the uninstall is located.
To respond just as plainly, WhenU doesn't give a crap what you want. If they have an opportunity to get their software onto your sy
Re:it's NOT your PC anymore (Score:2)
Thanks to the magic of Windows XP, they don't even have to visit a web site. There are exploits that can install crapware without ever opening a browser; the computer just needs to be on an unfirewalled broadband connection. Yay for remote access, boo for not bothering to protect it in any way.
Too dirty even for Microsoft (Score:2)
One indication of the impropriety of WhenU's actions is that even Microsoft does not do it. IE does, by default, collect a lot of marketing related material. For instance, anytime Microsoft can claim a search was needed (as when a url is typed in the address bar) it sends the data home. But they do stop short of actually modifying valid links to send users somewhere else.
Enjoined? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Enjoined? (Score:2)
Pop Ups? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pop Ups? (Score:1)
Internet Explorer uses patented Virus Transfer Protocol technology.
It makes it so easy to install viruses on your PC that the user doesn't have to make any effort at all.
Just think of all the pop-ups and viruses you are missing because you are using an inferior browser.
That's internet content that is basically being censored. I mean if software cannot repeatedly change your homepage to goatse then what has happened to freedom of speech?
And won't somebody think
Re:Pop Ups? (Score:2)
Not safe for work/home/humans.
It seems to me (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm just glad safari and mozilla block popups for me...
We can. (Score:4, Informative)
Use Mozilla. Tell your friends.
Re:We can. (Score:1)
I use Opera as my main browser, Mozilla if it fails, and finally MSIE if both do. My personal experience has been that Opera,Mozilla (or firebird), and MSIE have about the same amount of problem webpages, just different ones. Opera's and Mozilla's have about equivalent crap-blockers (pop-up and other types of stuff). Feature set is about the same, one wins in a few departm
Not good enough. (Score:2)
That's not a bad start, but it's better to liberate them completely. Most people won't really know the difference between windoze and a KDE desktop, but the Windoze desktop is less robust. Most people only care about email and web browsing. Any modern Linux distribution will give them that much better than Windoze does and last longer. Windows 2000 pro does not even come with a spell checker, how lame is that? Mozilla can provide a good browser and mail client on Win32,
Re:We can. (Score:2)
I'm afraid not... Javascript is evil, and Firebird only works right now because Advertisers are lazy, and all do things the same way. Popups and other annoyances cannot possibly be eliminated until you've completely disabled javascript.
Go ahead, using Firebird, click the link in my
Of course, that link is most certainly not safe for work, home, anywhere else.
Popup ads are a tax (Score:1, Interesting)
Popup ads, as I understand them, are a tax for not knowing how to disable them. If you don't want to learn - you look at ads. If you don't want to look at ads - you learn how to disable them.
Popups facilitate freedom of choice:)
I don't remember when I saw popup ads last time...
Ethics, Not Privacy, Is the Issue Here (Score:4, Insightful)
The injunction against the company only prevents them from using a particular pop-up ad that is triggered when a user visits the webste of one of their customers. So I think the main issue is it ethical to draw people away from your competitor by taking advantage of the fact that you have some software installed which "knows" when you visit your competitors' site?
Re:Ethics, Not Privacy, Is the Issue Here (Score:2)
The issue is that 1-800 Contacts wants the practice stopped (who can blame them), and that they actually have the phrase "1-800-Contacts" trademarked.
Re:Ethics, Not Privacy, Is the Issue Here (Score:2)
If you want to make something illegal, make it software which is deliberately difficult to remove.
Another good tool destroyed... (Score:5, Funny)
But people are so negative about pop-ups that if they aren't using a blocker (I'm using Firebird), they certainly aren't reading what's in the pop-up before they close it.
Yes, most pop-op blockers have a white-list function, but most users are totally clueless on how to use it and will not white list anything. Even if you give them a clue, they will revert to cluelessness in a few minutes. I'm not just guessing here. I installed Mozilla on every workstation here (15 WS's), changed the default browser to mozilla and demoed it, include the white-list function (our intranet uses pop-ups). So they all had the intranet white-listed "out of the box" and they all know that if there's a small blue question mark is means that there's a pop-up that they might be missing. How often do you think that they come to the me, complaining about home pages that doesn't work "in that stupid mozilla browser..." ?
The only solution that I can see is a global/central white list function. If it was possible to register my site as a "good practice pop-up site" at the various pop-up blocker suppliers, that would could us the pop-up back as a useful tool.
I imagine the rules for getting on the white list should be something like this:
1. Only display a pop-up once to each visitor. Use a cookie or something to make sure that you don't do it again.
2. No ads in the pop-up. The pop-up must be related to the site visited.
3. Make it clear if clicking a link will result in a pop-up (we need a common icon/symbol for this).
4. For the extra strict: Only pop-up to registered users who have signed up for the pop-ups. Like phpBB2's "news personal mail" pop-up box.
I'm unsure if it could be automated, either by analyzing the site with a robot, or through analyzing the manual white-listing done by the users of your blocker software. Otherwise it would have to be a manual process... (which means that it probably would become a paid for extra service).
Re:Another good tool destroyed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another good tool destroyed... (Score:2)
I disagree with you completely!
As the parent post noted, there are reasons, other than ads, for which popups are useful. My own reason for not completely disabling popups is:
The first reason is something they maybe could have worked around, per your comment. But in responding to a poll on a page, I'd much rather have a dismissable popup show me resu
Re:Another good tool destroyed... (Score:2)
Re:Another good tool destroyed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently advertisers never consider this effect, they make the same mistake over and over again.
- They changed television from an information/entertainment medium with the occasional advertisement into a continuous show of advertisements with the occasional show element inbetween. Result: people buy VCRs and TIVO, to skip the ads.
- when they discovered the banner ad they did not stay with displaying a logo and static advertisement text, no it all had to be animated and blinking. Result: people install banner blockers
- then they discover the pop-up, and abuse it to such a level that some sites cause an endless loop of popups and the amount of popups is annoying in generel. Result: people demand popup blockers.
When will they learn to be moderate? Probably never.
Re:Another good tool destroyed... (Score:2)
Which would work fine until the second the company running the registry realize they can make money by selling entries in the white list.
Cynical? Maybe, but remember it's advertising we're talking about
-John
Re:Another good tool destroyed... (Score:2)
Or you could switch to Opera. The Quick Preferences menu (F12) offers four settings with regard to popups:
Accept pop-up windows
Refuse pop-up windows
Open pop-up windows in background
Open requested pop-up windows only
The 'open requested pop-up windows only' setting will open only one
Removal/Annoyances... (Score:1)
On a side note, this is why we have Spywareinfo.com's forums... and the neighborhood geek next door, payable in Doritos and new components.
One last thing: I've found that Ad-Aware doesn't quite do as good a job removing this as Spybot S&D does. I use both and complement them with HijackThis and
Re: (Score:2)
What about CoolWebSearch? (Score:4, Interesting)
WhenU is at least installed through legal means. CWS installs through holes in the MS Java Machine.
If the courts wish to create injunctions against spyware/adware, why don't they just go against these first?
(For more information on CWS, if you're interested, check out Merijn's section on it. His CWShredder tool is quite nice.)
IE feature request. (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, but who is Microsoft to listen to a slashdotter. However, it's probably possible to make an extension that does the above, just like the extension that stops the "%01" URL-hiding bug.
AFAIK, IE just looks in a registry key to see which CLSIDs of programs want to attach to it, and then load these programs when an IE instance is running.
Guilt trip.. (Score:2, Funny)
I use opera (Score:2, Informative)
There still are popups ? (Score:1, Redundant)
So, to a person with a decent browser (a browser that forces you to deal with po
Re:There still are popups ? (Score:2)
It is a start, but I think it s*cks that you cannot simply view the popup by clicking on that icon, but have to add the site to a whitelist and then do a reload, hoping that the same popup will appear. They should fix that.
Re:There still are popups ? (Score:2)
However, the context of this story was to avoid annoying comercial popups. And for that, it works fine.
Blocking pop-ups not coming from a website (Score:2, Interesting)
So I'd think the popup blocking in WinXPSP2 (for example) will not be able to block this kind of popups. And well, if it will work, the dorks at Gator can just alter the program so that some weird window opens up with a HTML component in it, instead of a real browser window.
So yeah, this kind of software might just keep the popups alive.
Re:Blocking pop-ups not coming from a website (Score:2)
Mozilla Firebird (Score:1)
ob plug (Score:1, Redundant)
It's called Mozilla [mozilla.org].
Haven't seen a popup in ages.
Pop-ips? (Score:1, Redundant)
Next up: spam. Score: losing.
Soon peoples will be killed by surfing the net (Score:1)
Just use Mozilla (Score:2)
Re:WhenU.com (Score:2, Informative)
Re:And the webmasters say... (Score:3, Interesting)
Chatmag.com DOES NOT USE POP UP ADS!
If a user of Chatmag is viewing a pop up ad, it IS NOT being served by Chatmag.com but by one of several third party advertising servers. These third party advertising servers place a program on a users system, and then while browsing, serve ads from their servers.
If you have installed a file sharing program or "wallet", from such companies as: Gator, (Note: Gator has changed their name to Claria) Kazaa, WhenU, BearS