Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC To Update 1996 Cell Phone Radiation Standard

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the don't-rush-yourselves dept.

Cellphones 90

An anonymous reader writes "It's been more than a decade and a half since the FCC adopted a set of standards for radiation exposure from cell phones. The guidelines set in 1996 (and based on studies from the '80s) have applied to all cell phones released in the U.S. since then. Now, the FCC has decided that modern devices are just a tiny bit different than models from the '90s (where did those suitcase phones go?), so they're going to review and update the standard. 'Even though the FCC hasn't changed its standards for evaluating the safety of cell phones, it has provided consumers with information about how to minimize the risk of exposure to cell phone radiation. For example, the FCC recommends people use the speakerphone feature or an earpiece when talking on the phone, since increasing the distance the device is held from the body greatly reduces exposure. But the agency has not advocated for stricter warnings nor has it even endorsed these safety measures as necessary. The current review of the standards could change that as the agency will look at its testing procedures as well as the educational information it provides to the public about cell phone safety.'"

cancel ×

90 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

frosty piss! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43318907)

no APK for you!

Warning about corrupt moderator... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43318927)

A corrupt slashdot luser has infiltrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 180++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:

---

A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 180 or so times I noted above) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585795&cid=43285307 [slashdot.org]

&/or

B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here

---

(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).

APK

P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March now, & 180++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:

--

21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html [networkworld.com] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions (in-addr.arpa) via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:

GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
  http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
  http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
  http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
  http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]
  https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]
  https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php [abuse.ch]
  http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
  http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [malware.com.br]
  http://www.stopbadware.org/ [stopbadware.org]
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898692&cid=34473398 [slashdot.org]
  http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896216&cid=34458500 [slashdot.org]

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:

---

US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/16/0416238/US-Military-Blocks-Websites-To-Free-Up-Bandwidth [slashdot.org]

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)

---

Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB: -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218 [slashdot.org]

---

And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:

PEOPLE DISLIKE ADBANNERS: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/22/156225/Advertising-Network-Caught-History-Stealing [slashdot.org]

---

15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:

---

Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/bing_yahoo_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/24/malware_ads_google_yahoo/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/24/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/excite_and_rhapsody_rogue_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Google sponsored links caught punting malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/google_sponsored_links/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/11/yahoo_serves_12million_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/real_media_serves_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge [slashdot.org]

---

Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware [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]

---

Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware [slashdot.org]

---

THE NEXT AD YOU CLICK MAY BE A VIRUS:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus [slashdot.org]

---

NY TIMES INFECTED WITH MALWARE ADBANNER:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229 [slashdot.org]

---

MICROSOFT HIT BY MALWARES IN ADBANNERS:

http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com]

---

ISP's INJECTING ADS AND ERRORS INTO THE WEB: -> http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

ADOBE FLASH ADS INJECTING MALWARE INTO THE NET: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]

---

London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:

http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware [securityweek.com]

---

Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/spotify_malvertisement_attack/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:

---

Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/0041203/Infected-Androids-Run-Up-Big-Texting-Bills [slashdot.org]

---

AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ZITMO&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

---

It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT (from -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/16/wikileaks_mirror_malware_warning_row/ [theregister.co.uk] )

"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like stopbadware.org (which protects the Firefox browser)...

---

20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] ), &/or NoScript ( http://noscript.net/ [noscript.net] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:

---

DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/ghost_domains_dns_vuln/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

---

SECUNIA HIT BY DNS REDIRECTION HACK THIS WEEK:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/secunia_back_from_dns_hack/ [theregister.co.uk]

(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)

---

DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that):

http://www.scmagazineus.com/new-bind-9-dns-flaw-is-worse-than-kaminskys/article/140872/ [scmagazineus.com]

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)

---

Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)

---

DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit:

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/dns-hijacks-now-being-used-serve-black-hole-exploit-kit-121211 [threatpost.com]

---

DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/08/1353203/opendns-releases-dns-encryption-tool [slashdot.org]

---

Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/17/1429259/potential-0-day-vulnerability-for-bind-9 [slashdot.org]

---

Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against:

http://www.securityweek.com/five-dns-threats-you-should-protect-against [securityweek.com]

---

DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/ddos_on_dns_firm/ [theregister.co.uk]

---

Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!)

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/08/04/1525235.shtml?tid=172&tid=95&tid=218 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS ROOT SERVERS ATTACKED:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/02/06/2238225.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Re-Binding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/21/0315239.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/has-halvar-figured-out-super-secret-dns-vulnerability/1520 [zdnet.com]

---

BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/09/123222.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/08/21/2343250.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/16/1658209.shtml [slashdot.org]

---

High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/23/156212/High-Severity-BIND-Vulnerability-Advisory-Issued [slashdot.org]

---

Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1285 [zdnet.com]

---

Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]

---

DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/15/1238210/DNS-Problem-Linked-To-DDoS-Attacks-Gets-Worse [slashdot.org]

---

HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com]
  ScrubIT DNS -> http://www.scrubit.com/ [scrubit.com]
  OpenDNS -> http://www.opendns.com/ [opendns.com]

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz [norton.com] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...

---

20++ SLASHDOT USERS EXPERIENCING SUCCESS USING HOSTS FILES QUOTED VERBATIM:

---

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org] and http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to 127.0.0.1" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)

---

Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:

A RETURN TO THE KILLFILE:

http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):

---

"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."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!

---

"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."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm [furtherleft.net] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html [ntcompatible.com] !

---

"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS [slashdot.org] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL [wikipedia.org] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!

---

* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274 [slashdot.org]
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS & PROTECT IP ACT:2011 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457766&cid=37592458 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37589596 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1197039&cid=27556999 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 IN HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143349&cid=27012231 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27580299 [slashdot.org]
  0.0.0.0 in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139705&cid=26977225 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1319261&cid=28872833 [slashdot.org] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38586216 [slashdot.org]

---

Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0

PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...

You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use 127.0.0.1? My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using 0.0.0.0 (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using 127.0.0.1, next slowest using 0.0.0.0, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses (127.0.0.1 &/or 0.0.0.0, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...

AND

2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.

----

Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:

----

1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...

----

First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx [microsoft.com]

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths

====

The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - mvps.org covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem (mvps.org offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcache (like ANY fil

Re:Warning about corrupt moderator... apk (0)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319201)

Can this be killed off? I don't mean this account, I mean the actual meatbag behind it.

Re:Warning about corrupt moderator... apk (2)

feedayeen (1322473) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319651)

Can this be killed off? I don't mean this account, I mean the actual meatbag behind it.

I'll create a GUI interface using Visual Basic to track the IP address. Then we can send a fake DMCA request to his ISP to identify the user's real name. From there, we hire an assassin.

Re:Warning about corrupt moderator... apk (1)

L. J. Beauregard (111334) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321273)

I'd have never known that s/h/it was there if it wasn't for you. Don't feed the trolls.

Re:Warning about corrupt moderator... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319237)

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March now, & 180++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

Like this 50-page hosts file rant in a story about cell phone radiation? Fucking retard.

Pentrate my tender anushole (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319241)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

apk on 4chan [4chan.org]

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

INCONTROVERTIBLE FEEDBACK PROVIDING ESTABLISHED PROOF OF ALL MY POINTS:

--

That was amazing. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40948073 [slashdot.org]

--

My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41835161 [slashdot.org]

--

Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40948579 [slashdot.org]

--

put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40950023 [slashdot.org]

--

Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946259 [slashdot.org]

--

[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40945357 [slashdot.org]

--

this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40954565 [slashdot.org]

--

this is hilarious. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40955479 [slashdot.org]

--

I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40961339 [slashdot.org]

--

Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954251 [slashdot.org]

--

a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40945357 [slashdot.org]

--

a very clever parody of APK - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40944229 [slashdot.org]

--

Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40944603 [slashdot.org]

--

Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40958429 [slashdot.org]

--

Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40954673 [slashdot.org]

--

I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40956187 [slashdot.org]

--

KUDOS valiant AC. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897777 [slashdot.org]

--

Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40899171 [slashdot.org]

--

You made my day, thanks! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40896469 [slashdot.org]

--

Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40893381 [slashdot.org]

--

truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=41041795 [slashdot.org]

--

It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967209 [slashdot.org]

--

Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40969175 [slashdot.org]

--

APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967137 [slashdot.org]

--

Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41432951 [slashdot.org]

--

Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41509273 [slashdot.org]

--

That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41514107 [slashdot.org]

--

that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832599 [slashdot.org]

--

What? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832673 [slashdot.org]

--

It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41841251 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41843313 [slashdot.org]

--

it's apk, theres no reason to care. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847097 [slashdot.org]

--

Seems more like an apk parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847661 [slashdot.org]

--

That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847101 [slashdot.org]

--

Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41864711 [slashdot.org]

--

I can has summary? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41861327 [slashdot.org]

--

Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41869353 [slashdot.org]

--

We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869305 [slashdot.org]

--

Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42981977 [slashdot.org]

--

Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42984521 [slashdot.org]

--

In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [thorschrock.com] . Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42983119 [slashdot.org]

--

You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486901&cid=42989683 [slashdot.org]

--

"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028403 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028425 [slashdot.org]

--

I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43029495 [slashdot.org]

--

Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43037445 [slashdot.org]

--

Best. Troll. Ever. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3506945&cid=43044811 [slashdot.org]

--

I like monkeys. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43051505 [slashdot.org]

--

This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43052263 [slashdot.org]

--

I admire this guy's persistence. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063797 [slashdot.org]

--

It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063881 [slashdot.org]

--

APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063893 [slashdot.org]

--

Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [slashdot.org] , where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43064383 [slashdot.org]

--

I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3512099&cid=43069271 [slashdot.org]

--

^ Champion Mod parent up. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3513659&cid=43067371 [slashdot.org]

--

I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521721&cid=43094565 [slashdot.org]

--

The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522191&cid=43097221 [slashdot.org]

--

AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522219&cid=43097215 [slashdot.org]

--

If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115215 [slashdot.org]

--

">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115337 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115363 [slashdot.org]

--

No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto] 's tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43116855 [slashdot.org]

--

Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43216431 [slashdot.org]

--

Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43216225 [slashdot.org]

--

YOU ARE A GOD AMONG MEN. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569149&cid=43236143 [slashdot.org]

--

I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569173&cid=43236987 [slashdot.org]

--

Can I be in your quote list? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569443&cid=43237531 [slashdot.org]

--

Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569425&cid=43238177 [slashdot.org]

--

+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569149&cid=43238479 [slashdot.org]

--

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570085&cid=43243509 [slashdot.org]

--

APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570085&cid=43243145 [slashdot.org]

--

I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570111&cid=43245913 [slashdot.org]

--

oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247231 [slashdot.org]

--

"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43246997 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247097 [slashdot.org]

--

"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247135 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247219 [slashdot.org]

--

"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247225 [slashdot.org]
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247481 [slashdot.org]

--

Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572629&cid=43247533 [slashdot.org]

--

you have a point - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247823 [slashdot.org]

--

I do admire that level of dedication. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247765 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43250533 [slashdot.org]

--

I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572629&cid=43250411 [slashdot.org]

--

I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573571&cid=43251593 [slashdot.org]

--

Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573679&cid=43252957 [slashdot.org]

--

Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573873&cid=43255013 [slashdot.org]

--

I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574283&cid=43256029 [slashdot.org]

--

extremely bright - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43255855 [slashdot.org]

--

You provide many references, which is good. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43257043 [slashdot.org]

--

Obviously very passionate - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43261975 [slashdot.org]

--

Thanks ... You should probably stay - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3577613&cid=43262993 [slashdot.org]

--

Art? -- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569681&cid=43244883 [slashdot.org]

--

PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3577639&cid=43263029 [slashdot.org]

--

I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3576225&cid=43264325 [slashdot.org]

--

I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3578301&cid=43265657 [slashdot.org]

--

Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3578229&cid=43265767 [slashdot.org]

--

Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42698875 [slashdot.org]

--

Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43209619 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42701491 [slashdot.org]

--

You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3580251&cid=43270359 [slashdot.org]

--

Most insightful post on the Internet - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3579259&cid=43275207 [slashdot.org]

--

I read the whole thing *again* just to see if my comment was in there - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3588003&cid=43293069 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] So, did your mom do a lot of drugs when she was pregnant? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586303&cid=43291531 [slashdot.org]

--

people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581991&cid=43278203 [slashdot.org]

--

Slashdot devs seem in no hurry to fix this problem and it's been driving me nuts. So for anybody who values viewing at -1 and uses greasemonkey here's a Script [pastebin.com] . There's a chance of false positives and it's not the most optimized. But I value not having to scroll through > 10 paragraphs of APK, custom hosts files, or 'acceptable ads' spam. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43287671 [slashdot.org]
--> slashdot devs are too busy installing itunes for their hipster nerd buddys to sort this problem out. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43290701 [slashdot.org]

--

I can't get enough of all of this good stuff! Thanks for the informative links! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43287553 [slashdot.org]

--

When threatened, APK typically produces a post with links showing he's essentially posted this hundreds of times to slashdot stories... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43290275 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] Your post got downmodded because you're a nutjob gone off his meds. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586081&cid=43288893 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] The reason people impersonate you is because everyone thinks you're a moron. The hosts file is not intended to be used as you suggest. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591803&cid=43302885 [slashdot.org]
-->What? You don't have a 14MB hosts file with ~1million entries in it? Next you'll probably tell me that your computer doesn't start thrashing and take 5 minutes for a DNS lookup! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591803&cid=43302977 [slashdot.org]

--

[about apk] - this fwit is as thick as a post. worse, this shithead has mod points. and using them. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591681&cid=43302873 [slashdot.org]

--

In before the fight between those two guys and their walls of text... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43306485 [slashdot.org]

--

HEY APK YOU ARE A WASTE OF OXYGEN -GET A LIFE - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593009&cid=43308147 [slashdot.org]

--

KPA ...thgim dik a ekil .s.b laivirt hcus no emit hcum taht etsaw t'ndluow I sa ,ti gniod em TON si ti - syug ON - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43307605 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You seriously need to go see a shrink. You are a fucking fruitcake! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43307559 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] Did you ever consider that it's not just one corrupt moderator, it's a bunch of regular slashdot users who infrequently get mod points who think you are totally full of shit? Stop posting annoying off topic irrelevant bullshit, and people won't mod you down. I'm seriously sick of reading your posts about someone impersonating you. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43308389 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] you should be forced to use a cholla cactus as a butt-plug - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43308219 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] No one is on your side, that is why you're here. posting. still. No one cares. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595009&cid=43310903 [slashdot.org]

--

Who's the more moronic? The original moron, or the one who replies to him knowing full well his comment will certainly be ignored, if not entirely unread, thus bringing the insane troll post to the attention of those who would otherwise not have seen it at all (seeing as it started at 0 and would have rapidly been modded down to -1) and whose post (and, somewhat ironically I grant you, this one as well) now requires 3 more mod points to be spent to hide it? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43311073 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] I miss trollaxor. His gay porn world of slashdot executives and open-source luminaries was infinitely more entertaining than this drivel. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43311225 [slashdot.org]

--

PLEASE stop modding biters up. Anyone who responds to an abvious troll, especually one of these APK trolls, should autometically get the same -1 troll as the damned troll. Any response to a troll only makes the troll do more trolling. Come on, guys, use your brains -- it isn't that hard. Stop feeding the damned trolls! - (missing link)

--

[to apk] Lick the inside of goatse's anus, it's delicious! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3589605&cid=43301757 [slashdot.org]

--

Excellent post A++++++++++++ would scroll past again!!!! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595009&cid=43312407 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You are the one who is pitiful. If you didn't spam /. with your bullshit you wouldn't have spammer 'impostors' doing the same. Just fuck off and die already, ok? Please, really. Step in front of a bus. Drink some bleach. Whatever it takes, just FUCK OFF and DIE. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595851&cid=43313459 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] From one AC to another please for the love of god, PRINT YOUR HOST FILE OUT AND CRAM IT DOWN YOUR JAPS EYE!!! For fucks sake we don't care we see this and it takes the piss, short of a full frontal lobotomy what will it take to stop you posting this you moronic fuckwit? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596285&cid=43314755 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] And someone forgot to take his meds today...Are you really that dense that you cant tell that the only reason the "impostor" exists because you have a hard time realizing that you are wrong and/or wont let it go. It would take a complete moron to not realize that the whole reason he continues to do it is because he knows he can get you to respond by simply posting. This isnt rocket science, this is internet 101... Let me offer you some advice on how to get rid of this "impostor"...shutup - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595561&cid=43313235 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] If you had a 'luser' account it wouldn't be a problem. But you don't want one of those, because your long rambling and bizarrely formatted posts mean your karma gets nuked in next to no time. So I guess you just have to work out which is 'worth it'. Posting AC because I don't want to become your latest fixation. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43314397 [slashdot.org]

--

I wouldn't be surprised if that is APK trying to draw attention to himself, since he thinks such endless tirades are examples of him winning and make him look good. When people stop paying attention to him, or post actual counterpoints he can't come up with a response to, he'll post strawman troll postings to shoot down, sometimes just copy pasted from previous stories. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43308851 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] No one wants to read your copy pasted crap. Maybe someone is mocking you because you make it so easy to? So drop it, and participate like an adult please. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596383&cid=43315069 [slashdot.org]

--

Seriously.... What. The. Fuck. Can you two homos just go make out on brokeback mountain already, and stop talking about how one of you misspelled "penetration", and how the other cockblocks with their hosts files while grabing the other's goat? Goodness, it sure feels like being in a mountain range, trying to peer around those fucking orbital tether lengthed posts of pure premium bullsit the two of you somehoq manage to keep pushing out on demand. Shit stinks! At this point, i'd be willing to risk the fucking extinction of all life on earth by redirecting siding spring C/2013 1A to miss Mars and land on both of your fucking heads instead. The deaths of billions would be a small price to pay to shut you two cackling lovebirds up! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596513&cid=43315327 [slashdot.org]

--

Listen up jackass, why the hell would somebody want to impersonate you? You're a certified internet kook. Nobody gives a hot about your 3 gig hosts file. And nobody is impersonating you. You're already a fucking parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596557&cid=43315579 [slashdot.org]

--

[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. Despite this advice you are convinced that your comments are valuable contributions, ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary (namely the -1 scores your posts earn on a regular basis). - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42698875 [slashdot.org]

--

SOME QUOTES REMOVED FOR SPACE CONSTRAINTS - MIRRORED HERE:
http://pastebin.com/Cm0HHC66 [pastebin.com]

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [google.com] I practice.

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

Disproof of all apk's statements:

OLD POST LINKS MIRRORED HERE (UPDATED 3/29):
http://pastebin.com/XdQRNeQ4 [pastebin.com]

RECENT POST LINKS:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595715&cid=43312649 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595851&cid=43312901 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595843&cid=43314741 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595851&cid=43314853 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596383&cid=43314951 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596285&cid=43315101 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596285&cid=43315113 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596513&cid=43315283 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596557&cid=43315701 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596725&cid=43317341 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598005&cid=43317813 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598129&cid=43318101 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596709&cid=43318587 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596889&cid=43318605 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598019&cid=43319227 [slashdot.org]
LIST MAY BE INCOMPLETE
REPORT MISSING LINKS FOR REWARD (check pastebin archive first)

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

DID YOU FIND THIS MESSAGE HELPFUL?
TIP JAR: 1EtLgU5L3jhmVkDmqrWT9VhoZ1F2jSimHS [blockchain.info]
RECEIVED: 0.0195 BTC - thx! ;-)

It's not I folks: It's Jeremiah Cornelius... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319327)

THIS is why he's doing it & proof of it, here -> http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585927&cid=43295193 [slashdot.org] when others pointed out Jeremiah Cornelius forgot to submit one of the "first post spams" masquerading as myself as AC, & mistakenly submitted one of the impersonations of myself as his registered 'luser' name here on /. forums.

Pretty pitiful actually, but like every up to no good idiot does? He screwed up & submitted it under his registered 'luser' name here.

* Jeremiah Cornelius: DO YOURSELF, and the rest of us, A GIANT FAVOR MAN: Seek professional psychiatric help!

(Since Jeremiah Cornelius obviously can't get over the fact he made a spelling error on what it is HE ALLEGEDLY DID FOR A LIVING? That's not MY fault... it's HIS!)

APK

P.S.=> I seriously must have dusted JC (in his mind @ least) for his BAD spelling error & it "got his goat"...

I.E.-> Catching what he claimed to do as a job, for YEARS he left "PENETRATION" (correct) spelled as "PENTRATION" (incorrect) on his resume on LinkedIn & I pointed it out as he & his friends trolled me as usual (webmistressrachel, gmhowell, & crew (probably ALL JC no doubt using alterate emails or TOR to do it as a possible - I've caught "them & theirs" doing it before, ala Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person))).

So THAT is what has gotten his goat in a technical debate & his "geek angst" could only come up with *trying* to "impersonate me" in every news thread on /. for the month of March 2013 so far!

(Just to attempt to 'discredit me' as a spammer here obviously)

Doing so, by posting that "$10,000 challenge" &/or reposts of my old posts on hosts file value to end users into EVERY SINGLE NEWS ARTICLE POSTED on /. ...

It's all I can think of that *might* cause such a mentally troubled 'reaction' like the Jeremiah Cornelius is doing & there's NO QUESTION he's the one doing this spamming of nearly every posted article masquerading as myself...!

... apk

Re:It's not I folks: It's Jeremiah Cornelius... ap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319377)

Re:It's not I folks: It's Jeremiah Cornelius... ap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319399)

Re:It's not I folks: It's Jeremiah Cornelius... ap (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319999)

Get an account retard. If you format your password as crazily as your posts no-one will ever crack it.

complicated radiation patterns (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year and a half ago | (#43318933)

interesting question if the fractal antennaes modern units use make "hot spots" in the head

Re: complicated radiation patterns (1)

Great Big Bird (1751616) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322463)

Have a citation for that? Sounds interesting if true.

Re:complicated radiation patterns (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43322941)

Probably not. The whole point of a fractal antenna is that you get a relatively omnidirectional pattern.

Re:complicated radiation patterns (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#43384439)

but they don't, look at real world results, neither omnidirectional nor frequency agnostic

texting vs talking (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43318937)

People no longer talk on cell phones to any significant degree. They text (*), which involves holding the phone at a distance from the head. That's got to reduce the exposure.

(*) Except for Machete. Machete don't text.

Re:texting vs talking (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about a year and a half ago | (#43325075)

People no longer talk on cell phones to any significant degree. They text (*), which involves holding the phone at a distance from the head. That's got to reduce the exposure.

(*) Except for Machete. Machete don't text.

'cept me. I talk to family on the phone for up to 2 hours per day, one stretch. Fortunately, I my provider's tower is less than 1/4 mile from me so my transmit power is lowered, but still..... Very close, long time.

documentary (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43318953)

There is a good documentary about the cell phone radiation.

Resonance - Beings of Frequency
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vb9R0x_0NQ

The New McCarthy'ism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319157)

The new McCarthyism, of the Jenny variety. Stop posting this anti-science shit. If you want to blow off science, go be a creationist, where at least you have some ancient book to back you up, instead of straight-up hysterical lies.

Re:documentary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43327815)

I watched a few minutes, just skipping through it and the first thing I saw was that it interfered with cockroaches, which I consider a good effect.

But then it started talking about birds and butterflies and even bees facing extinction and that's bad, but it also said this has been happening for most of my life and I realized that it's not radiation from cell phones, it was my hitting puberty that is the cause of all this.

Basic summary: (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43318965)

RF is non-ionizing. The danger caused by RF is due to tissue heating. While you aren't going to get RF burns from a cell phone, it might not be a great idea to warm your brain for extended periods of time. So take a break from time to time or use hands free since increasing the distance dramatically decreases the exposure.

Re:Basic summary: (4, Interesting)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319069)

If there was a significant effect it would have shown up in the various massive epidemiological studies.

The FCC 'advice' is based on supposition, not science.

It goes like this.
A -> B (RF causes local heating)
B -> C (Local heating causes disease)

So A -> C (RF causes disease)

But A -> C was shown not to be true, and B -> C has never been established, but given the A->C thing, is almost certainly not true.

If they want to save lives, they would have more success banning base jumping from radio towers.

Re:Basic summary: (2)

ilguido (1704434) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319281)

The FCC 'advice' is based on supposition, not science.

Yeah, but science is all based on suppositions.

It goes like this. A -> B (RF causes local heating) B -> C (Local heating causes disease)

So A -> C (RF causes disease)

But A -> C was shown not to be true, and B -> C has never been established, but given the A->C thing, is almost certainly not true.

You made it too easy. First, it may not be as simple as A->B->C; second there's more than heating: "The International Agency for Research on Cancer Exit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, has recently classified radiofrequency fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and weak mechanistic evidence (from studies of genotoxicity, effects on immune system function, gene and protein expression, cell signaling, oxidative stress, and apoptosis, along with studies of the possible effects of radiofrequency energy on the blood-brain barrier)."

I concur that right now it is idiotic to demonize/fear cellphones because they could cause cancer (or other health problems), however it's equally idiotic being dismissive about it. We know well what happened with asbestos and papilloma virus.

Re:Basic summary: (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319809)

Asbestos and papilloma virus were eventually tied to actual diseases. There is no corresponding disease outbreak around cellphones. There is nothing there that needs explaining.

Re:Basic summary: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320021)

Mesothelioma also often doesn't show up for 20-50 years after exposure to asbestos. Maybe it hasn't been long enough?

Re:Basic summary: (3, Insightful)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320239)

Penis cancer was strongly related to a career in chimney cleaning and like mesothelioma, it takes a few decades to show up. The book 'The Emperor of Maladies' gives a good account of how major causes for both these diseases were identified. By the time the link was shown, chimney cleaning as an major industry was going away and the problem was fixing itself.

The rising rates of Alzheimers disease may be related to glutamates in the diet, but it's going to take some huge studies to show this to be true, even though the basic chemistry of how it occurs at the cell level is textbook stuff.

Since we generally don't start looking until the disease rates start going up, there's not a lot you can do beyond massive data collection and tracking today in the hopes that something pops up. That data collection is happening, but more for the purpose of selling you things that identifying disease causing behaviors.

Re:Basic summary: (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319839)

Right, but with both asbestos and smoking, the signal in the epidemiological data was huge and easily seen. Since the signal in the 'low level RF causing cancer' data is next to non-existent, any effect will at most be minor compared to other things (like diet for example).

The emerging data on various hormetic effects shows small effects, but consistently and repeatably shows them.

The strongest univariate association between eating any single food and cancer is for wheat. But apparently those of us who avoid 'healthy whole grains' are a bit loopy. People's ability to weigh risk is astonishingly bad.

   

Re:Basic summary: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320055)

How long does it take before the data is obvious though? Mesothelioma might not develop until 50 years after asbestos exposure.

Re:Basic summary: (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320277)

We've had whole industries of people exposed to higher than background RF since the second world war. Anyone with walkie talkies. Anyone working RF transmission equipment. Anyone working on radar. etc. These people have had time to get old and die by now. So there's been plenty of time for the signal to show up in the data. It hasn't.

For the crackpots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320793)

If 20-somethings all get cellphone cancer in their 70s. I suspect that statistically speaking half of them would have died by then anyways. It's hard to get excited about something that has not yet been demonstrated and are built on theories that are counter to our current understanding of RF and EM exposure.

Re:Basic summary: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319459)

Rather, they should ban tobacco and alcohol.

Re:Basic summary: (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319517)

Worse than that, no one has measured RF tissue heating from a cell phone in temperature controlled (that is to say living) tissue.
So even if B->C were true, no one has demonstrated that A->B is even happening in vivo from cell phone transmitters.

Your head temperature probably rises more when standing outside in the sun.

The idea of leaving the cell phone in your pocket while talking on bluetooth simply ADDs RF to another location (the pocket) while doing nothing to reduce over all exposure. The body part most exposed to radiation is probably the hand, more specifically the Other Hand, (the non-dominant hand) with which most people hold the phone.

Re:Basic summary: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319627)

My ear gets hotter from wearing my headphones for an extended period.

Re:Basic summary: (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319849)

>My ear gets hotter from wearing my headphones for an extended period.
My ears burn when I listen to the conversations between my cube dwelling neighbors.

The real danger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320777)

You're more likely to get cancer from the dioxins in the heading cell phone plastic than from some non-ionizing radiation. Maybe you should consider washing your hands after you use your cell phone. Or better yet, we should have stricter standards on the plastics that humans are in contact with every day.

Re:Basic summary: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320857)

This is why most researchers clain that RF doesnt do anything:
This A->B (RF causes local heating).. and B->C (local heating causes disease) is both not significant.

But the mechanism of RF causing changes in cells could be very different.
They may have implications on biology that we have not researched well yet..

There are far more mechanisms than heating that may cause stress or damage to the biological body.
To name a few:
1) Resonating ions
The Cells, especially the nervous system is a complex system that contains all kinds of different ions and atoms contained within complex structures.
The ions may resonate with certain frequencies and break the boundaries of the structures it was contained in (more often than regular). For example this may give some stress on the nervous system.
This is what researchers have indeed found: People are more stressed under RF.
2) Resonating nucleus
As known the nucleus of an atom may resonate with certain high frequenies.
Small structures within cells (like DNA) are of such a small scale that building them takes a lot of mechanisms work together in harmony. The body prefers certain nucleus of the same atom over others, and certain chemical reactions are different depending on the amount of neutrons in the nucleus (like Ozone). Therefore there is some kind of interaction between the inside of the nucleus and the chemical constructions is certainly present. Even if this interaction is weak it is still possible that certain chemical reactions are influenced by resonating nucleus of atoms.
Researchers did find an increase in DNA breakage under some high frequencies, so therefore it is possible that the DNA itself may have chemical structures or reactions that are influenced by nucleus of the atoms.

Compared with background radiation of any kind, all artificial radiation is usually of a certain frequency. This means anything artificial RF may cause resonating, while the natural version does not.

Re:Basic summary: (1)

Kelbear (870538) | about a year ago | (#43333075)

Buddy, I am ready and willing to hear out theories for how RF radiation can hurt me, but when they're so laughably vague such as this one, you make it very hard to keep an open mind.

You could take this same post to make an argument against heating devices with about the same level of effectiveness. Heat affects you in a "certain" way, and "may" cause "structures" to break by interacting with atoms and inducing chemical reactions. Studies have shown that higher levelsheat can cause people to report higher levels of "stress". It's better to live in "harmony" with the temperatures of the "natural" environment rather than "artificial" heat which can have unknown dangers associated with it. We should all take reasonable precautions to avoid heaters, stove tops, steamers, and fire.

I am open to the suggestion that it COULD be harmful, but since we're bathed in RF radiation all the time as it is, the burden of proof is shifting towards those who want to show that there IS harm.

Re:Basic summary: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328715)

Often times, its better to be safe than sorry.

Humans didn't start out knowing how to prevent and cure diseases but they had folk tales and legends and traditions which keep people healthy even though people in the past didn't know exactly how it works.

For example, in some cultures, food portions may be part of a basic guideline or rule e.g. to have mixed vegetables and meat dishes.
Of course people in the past don't know how nutrient deficiency came about nor can they really prove anything but they acted on supposition anyway.

Re:Basic summary: (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320713)

Warming your brain is a common activity that's well studied. It happens every time you exercise and your body temperature goes up. The effects of hyperthermia are also well known and they occur at temperatures significantly higher than what your cell phone signal would ever produce in your brain.

Change the name (4, Insightful)

simonbp (412489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43318969)

The general public doesn't know the difference between RF EM radiation and ionizing/nuclear radiation. That's why it's some common to call microwaving a foodstuff "nuking it" (hydrogen bonding it would be more appropriate).

So, just don't call it radiation. Call RF emission or RF power. Just as accurate, just as technical sounding, but less scary to the illiterate.

Re:Change the name (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319059)

It's fun to say I'm going to nuke it. Way better than I'll stick it in the microwave. I know the radiation difference, but that doesn't change anything. When was the last time you rolled up your window?

Re:Change the name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319213)

So it's save to microwave my cat? (as long as I don't raise its temperature to much)

Re:Change the name (1)

Linsaran (728833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320709)

I know my cat would probably murder me if I tried to put it in a microwave, so in that sense no it's not particularly safe for you to microwave your cat. If you meant would it be safe for your cat, then sorta. I suppose you could probably expose it to 3-5 seconds of microwaves without any particularly ill effects, maybe a slight sunburn (do cats even get sunburns?), but any more than that and it would probably start getting serious damage. If you figure an average microwave can heat a burrito from frozen solid to 'too hot to eat' in about 75 seconds, then there's definitely enough energy to make your cat all explodey and dead in the same time frame.

Re:Change the name (1)

ebvwfbw (864834) | about a year and a half ago | (#43325131)

... If you figure an average microwave can heat a burrito from frozen solid to 'too hot to eat' in about 75 seconds, then there's definitely enough energy to make your cat all explodey and dead in the same time frame.

You don't have to wonder. Google microwave cat. Sadly people do this and have done this for years. I remember hearing about people doing it in the 1970s when consumer microwaves came out in an attempt to dry the cat out thinking it was more like a hair dryer. So they said.

Re:Change the name (2)

justthinkit (954982) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319307)

(hydrogen bonding it would be more appropriate)

Wiki doesn't exactly agree:
A microwave oven [wikipedia.org] , often colloquially shortened to microwave, is a kitchen appliance that heats food by bombarding it with electromagnetic radiation in the microwave spectrum causing polarized molecules in the food to rotate and build up thermal energy in a process known as dielectric heating.

To sum that up in a single word, I'd go for "exciting", as in "I excited my Hot Pocket with the microwave".

Re:Change the name (1)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321373)

So, just don't call it radiation. Call RF emission or RF power. Just as accurate, just as technical sounding, but less scary to the illiterate.

This is what happened with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). It would have been logical to call the medical imaging technique nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, NMRI. Instead we leave off the N and call it MRI.

idiocy (5, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319051)

Cell phone radiation is non-ionizing. There is no known, plausible mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. That puts the burden of proof on the people who claim there's harm. No such effect has been documented in animals. No such effect [sciencebasedmedicine.org] seems to exist in epidemiological studies in humans.

It's depressing that science education is so poor that ordinary citizens don't seem able to evaluate these facts appropriately.

It's depressing that journalists do such a lousy job that they keep on reporting on a manufactured controversy as if all evidence were of equal value.

It's depressing that funding agencies such as NIH continue to give money to this type of junk science, and that scientific journals continue to publish it.

Re:idiocy (2)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319189)

Furthermore, there's a growing body of evidence that hormesis is vital for health and so a low level of exposure to radiation (ionizing and non ionizing), toxins and harmful biological entities in the environment is a good thing that promotes health.

Some fun links because I'm too lazy to find proper citations on a Saturday morning..
http://blog.sethroberts.net/2012/04/01/moderate-alcohol-consumption-associated-with-less-cirrhosis/ [sethroberts.net]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller12.html [lewrockwell.com]
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/tiny-amounts-of-ethanol-dramatically-221986.aspx [ucla.edu]
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/12/20/low-dose-radiation/ [lbl.gov]

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319245)

Non-ionizing radiation is harmless (unlike ionizing radiation, toxins and harmful biological entities) which means that it is completely unrelated to "hormesis".

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319771)

Careful with the blanket safety statements there. Non-ionising radition includes things like UV light (sunburn at the beach, etc.)

Anyway, non-ionizing RF is far from proven harmless: http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947383619

Re:idiocy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319899)

Careful with the blanket safety statements there. Non-ionising radition includes things like UV light (sunburn at the beach, etc.)

To photo-ionize hydrogen, needs an energy of 13.6 eV. That energy corresponds to a wavelength of 91.2 nm. UV light ranged from 3 eV to 124 eV the equivalent of 400 nm to 10 nm. Ionizing radiation begins in the ultra violet. That's why sun light causes skin cancer. It's ionizing.

Re:idiocy (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319269)

The research for this kind of stuff is pretty weak and inconclusive. What's more, the results regularly go back and forth and are generally done in a post hoc fashion after the data is collected. Now, when they take that data and start making reproducible predictions about who will and won't get sick, then I'll take it seriously. Until then it's just pseudoscience at best.

Alcohol is a poison, there is no quantity which isn't poisonous, however in sufficiently low concentrations it's not likely to do much harm to the body. Nobody should be recommending that people take up drinking for health benefits as the evidence is shaky at best.

This isn't the same as when people suggest that it's a bad idea to kill all the bacteria around them, there's a reason to be nice to the bacteria, they often times do helpful things for us, and it's mostly just certain strains that cause problems and cases where the immune system is weak that harsher measures are needed.

Re:idiocy (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319707)

No, there's quite a bit of evidence that light drinking is good for most people. It's not a big enough effect to recommend that non drinkers take it up, but that doesn't make it any less real.

You don't have to make specific predictions about who will or won't get sick. There are very few situations in science where you can make individual specific predictions, and most of those are trivial.

There is weak evidence that low levels of radiation might be beneficial. There's no evidence that its harmful above the linear extrapolation from higher dosages, which is what alarmists generally assume.

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320121)

Indeed. We have some evidence that Linear No Threshold (the model typically used for ionising radiation) is wrong, perhaps badly wrong. But the most obvious way to gather good evidence for a better model is to irradiate large numbers of people. Who here wants to get exposed to a dose that the linear model says has an 80% chance of causing death? We need a few thousand of you to try it. Maybe only 10% of you will die - a significant new data point that would doubtless save everybody a lot of money. The 90% who don't die will get to celebrate with raised environmental limits.

Re:idiocy (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320179)

Sure you can make individual predictions, if you can't make the predictions, then you can't claim that it's the case. This attitude is why medical science is such garbage, you cannot use retrospective studies in this fashion.

I could claim that eating beats makes one super fast because of a few top athletes eating beats, but without carrying out a forward looking study, there's no way that I would know that it was the beats that was doing it, or something else.

Same goes here, people who drink, aren't just drinking, they're doing all sorts of other things, until they have research to back the fact that it's the drinking that's the causation of this, then they shouldn't be saying that it's the drinking. It could easily be any number of other lifestyle choices that go along with the drinking that causes it. What's more, even if it is drinking, you don't know that it's the alcohol itself that's doing creating the effect, alcoholic beverages tend to have other things in them, most folks are not using pure distilled spirits as their source of alcohol. They're typically talking about beer and wine for most consumption.

As for evidence of harm, alcohol is poison. You can pussy foot around it all you like, but the fact of the matter is that once it's in your system your body does what it needs to do to get it out of your system as quickly as possible, because it is poison. The real question is at what point does that become important.

And BTW, considering how many alcohol related fatalities and general misery that goes on in the world, I think a bit of caution is called for, rather than handwaving away the concerns about it's safety. And certainly doctors shouldn't be encouraging drinking by releasing half baked retrospective studies of minimal reliability.

Re:idiocy (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320541)

Sure you can make individual predictions, if you can't make the predictions, then you can't claim that it's the case. This attitude is why medical science is such garbage, you cannot use retrospective studies in this fashion.

An easy counter example. In quantum physics it's impossible to make detailed predictions about individual particles. Yet it's often held up as the epitome of hard science.

I think you need to think through your argument more. The rest of your examples illustrate that you don't understand the basics of statistics at all and have a poor understanding of the basics of science as well.

Regarding your statements about alcohol: Oxygen is a poison. You can pussy foot around it all you like, but the fact of the matter is that once it's in your system your body does what it needs to do to get it out of your system as quickly as possible, because it is poison. The real question is at what point does that become important[?]

Actually, let me revise my previous statement. You don't understand statistics, you don't understand science, and you suffer from the issues most puritans do - use of excessive generalization, straw man construction, and any other logical fallacy you have to commit to convince yourself your hatred of something is justified.

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320917)

once it's in your system your body does what it needs to do to get it out of your system as quickly as possible

No, it starts metabolizing an energy source just as it would any other (fats, carbs, proteins). Alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases oxidize the stuff, and once it's turned into acetyl CoA, it's ready for burning or storage (as fat). That's why heavy alcohol consumption is associated with fatty liver.

Re:idiocy (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321407)

Yes. An excess of oxygen partial pressure is poisonous to the human body. Look at what the gas ratios were in the Apollo craft or, even more fun, become a certified scuba diver and learn about oxygen toxicity.

Re:idiocy (1)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321903)

As for evidence of harm, alcohol is poison. You can pussy foot around it all you like, but the fact of the matter is that once it's in your system your body does what it needs to do to get it out of your system as quickly as possible, because it is poison.

Aside from not being true, this is a dumb criterion for poison. You know something else my body tries to get out of my system as quickly as possible? Hit... err, I mean water. On the other hand, my body is perfectly happy to keep lead for long periods of time, incorporating it into my structure. Which one is the poison again?

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320807)

You are literally 500 years out of date on your toxicology.

Alle Dinge sind Gift und nichts ist ohne Gift; allein die Dosis macht, dass ein Ding kein Gift ist.

- Paracelsus

Or to put it in English: "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."

The idea that the dose makes the poison the fundamental basis for the field of toxicology. So, I guess you just haven't had a chance to experience the Renaissance, yet? It is pretty cool, you should definitely look it up.

PS: Dihydrogen monoxide is a poison as well.

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43328301)

This is why I only drink alcohol infused with pro-biotics

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319381)

They put mice A and B in litters, mice A next to a broadcasting RF/EM source: mice A got more birth and developmental defects. Yes, RF emissions affect biology.

Re:idiocy (3, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319463)

Cell phone radiation is non-ionizing. There is no known, plausible mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. That puts the burden of proof on the people who claim there's harm.

There are two commonly-held contradictory beliefs at play here.

  • From a science standpoint, you can't prove a negative so the burden of proof should be on those claiming the product is harmful.
  • From a consumer safety standpoint, you're supposed to prove your product is safe before it can be brought to market. (e.g. UL testing)

The FCC is trapped in the middle here (as is frequently the FTC, FAA, NTSB, FDA, NIH, etc). They're trying their best to satisfy both by using scientific principles to come up with safety standards that products can be tested against.

There are certain issues where the common opinion on slashdot favors the second instead of the first. I won't mention what they are because lately that's a quick and easy way to get your post modded down into oblivion (that wasn't the case 10 years ago - nowadays too many people ignore the moderating guidelines and use their mod points as "dislike" votes). But if you think about it I'm sure you can figure them out.

It's depressing that funding agencies such as NIH continue to give money to this type of junk science, and that scientific journals continue to publish it.

If the burden of proof is on the people who claim there's harm, and you prohibit funding of any further attempts to find such harm, that subverts the scientific process. For a long time people suspected that electricity and magnetism were somehow related, but were unable to figure out how. How would things have turned out if those who believed they weren't related pointed to all the early failures and cited them as reason to cut off all funding for attempts to find a relationship between the two? I completely agree with you that there's no danger from these levels of non-ionizing radiation. But those who claim there is a danger must be allowed to continue trying to prove their viewpoint. Otherwise you've turned science into one big circle jerk of confirmation bias.

Generally, the government agencies funding those types of studies do a pretty good job of it. They don't just keep funding the same study over and over. In order for the applicant to get funding, s/he has to propose something new and novel - either something which hasn't been studied before, or some way to conduct the study which hasn't been tried before and could give different insight.

Re:idiocy (2)

bcrowell (177657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319623)

If the burden of proof is on the people who claim there's harm, and you prohibit funding of any further attempts to find such harm, that subverts the scientific process.

By this logic, the NIH should be funding endless studies of all kinds of quackery, such as putting magnets in your shoes to cure arthritis. There isn't unlimited tax money available to do unlimited numbers of studies on topics where no convincing positive evidence exists and there are strong, fundamental reasons to believe that the previous negative results were to be expected.

For a long time people suspected that electricity and magnetism were somehow related, but were unable to figure out how. How would things have turned out if those who believed they weren't related pointed to all the early failures and cited them as reason to cut off all funding for attempts to find a relationship between the two?

This is an apples-and-oranges comparison. In 1820, electricity and magnetism were not well understood at the fundamental level. In 2013, the interaction of nonionizing radiation with matter is well understood at the fundamental level, and has been for 150 years.

But those who claim there is a danger must be allowed to continue trying to prove their viewpoint. Otherwise you've turned science into one big circle jerk of confirmation bias.

I don't advocate prohibiting them from doing studies. I just advocate not continuing to give them tax money to do it, and not continuing to publish their inconclusive results, based on poor methods, in peer-reviewed journals. We don't fund people to continue testing the hypothesis that malaria is caused by bad air, or that maggots arise from decaying flesh by spontaneous generation. That doesn't make the germ theory of disease "one big circle jerk of confirmation bias."

Generally, the government agencies funding those types of studies do a pretty good job of it. They don't just keep funding the same study over and over. In order for the applicant to get funding, s/he has to propose something new and novel - either something which hasn't been studied before, or some way to conduct the study which hasn't been tried before and could give different insight.

What you're describing is the way it's supposed to work. Cell phones and cancer are an example where it doesn't actually work that way.

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320075)

By this logic, the NIH should be funding endless studies of all kinds of quackery, such as putting magnets in your shoes to cure arthritis.

Unfortunately, they are [nih.gov] .

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319545)

Non-ionizing radiation can certainly damage DNA. If you don't believe me go see what happens to meat you heat in a microwave oven.

You don't even have to heat stuff that high to cause problems. The maximum safe temperature for a brain is about 42C. If your skull + phone somehow cause hotspots you might not notice immediately - there's redundancy and not much pain detection in the brain itself.

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319997)

Non-ionizing radiation can certainly damage DNA. If you don't believe me go see what happens to meat you heat in a microwave oven.

Except cell phones have nowhere near the amount of power that microwaves have.

Microwave ovens output about 1000 Watts of power. By contrast a cell phone outputs 2 Watts max.

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320935)

Of course, one thing the brain does have is an extremely high blood flow - about 20% of cardiac output, or 1 L/min, so any heated tissue will be rapidly cooled by the passing blood.

Re:idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43320077)

But there are peer reviewed studies indicating that non-ionizing radiation alters the blood-brain barrier? Why does the damage have to be cancer?

Re:idiocy (1)

Misagon (1135) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320649)

No, it is not idiocy. There are other things that could go on than just ionizing or heating. There have been numerous studies that have shown that various things can happen inside human tissue from exposure to microwave radiation ... but science does not yet understand exactly what these effects imply, or if the harm as a result of "normal" cell phone use would be significant enough to bother.

For instance, one study showed that if you dope glucose with isotopes and take a PET scan of a person head while talking in a 2G (CDMA or GSM) phone held next to the ear, you will find that isotopes will centre around the phone's antenna. Why those (brain) cells consume so much more energy than other cells is unknown.

There have also been several tests with lab rats that have shown ruptures in the blood-brain barrier, causing death of nerve cells and loss of cognitive function.

Another issue is that not all microwave radiation is equal, and with the frequency bands of 3G and 4G, we don't know that much yet.

Not idiocy, fact! (1)

Misagon (1135) | about a year ago | (#43355683)

You wanted to see an epidemiological study for humans that shows a link between cell phone radiation and cancer.

Here you go:

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K.
Pooled analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and cordless phones including living and deceased subjects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21331446 [nih.gov]

Cell Towers (2)

ISoldat53 (977164) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319073)

How dangerous is the other end of the transmission? Are cell towers a threat?

Re:Cell Towers (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319093)

None of it is a threat.

Re:Cell Towers (1)

Dark$ide (732508) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319113)

How dangerous is the other end of the transmission? Are cell towers a threat?

Only during a hurricane when a falling tower (unlikely) could cause structural damage or injury.

Re:Cell Towers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319115)

Unless you are standing within 5 metres of the tower's antenna, your phone is heating you up more than the tower.

Re:Cell Towers (1)

rueger (210566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319287)

According to a lot of people in this town, yes. Along with WIFI in schools and, I suspect, fluoridation.

How the hell do you counter the great wallops of misinformation that are flying around us?

Re:Cell Towers (1)

NIK282000 (737852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319789)

Take advantage of it. Get some anti-wifi signs printed up and sell them with "a portion of the proceeds going to WiFi exposure research," be sure to hug your router once a day to see if you feel better or worse ;)

Trolls commence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319185)

No comments yet, ignoring years of research about microwaves changing tenths of phenomenons in physiology, like ion diffusion or opening of the blood-brain barrier? No comments yet ridiculing about 100W from sun exposure, ignoring complex patterns of interaction between waves of different length and a biological tissue? How is it possible, given the big money between cellular phones? Mod me down at least, it is easy.

http://www-ehs.ucsd.edu/rad/pdf/mobilephones.pdf

Re:Trolls commence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43321959)

changing tenths of phenomenons in physiology?

What does this mean?

Oblig... (3, Funny)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319265)

Re:Oblig... (3, Insightful)

j-beda (85386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319515)

And this one is also widely relevant: http://xkcd.com/882/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Oblig... (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43320305)

One thing is proven: Scientific research causes cancer in rats.

So many differences (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319375)

The differences between phones, signal strengths, antenna designs, usage patterns, frequencies, etc. are so vast that even if a connection to some disease is found it will probably not apply to the phones in use when the discovery is proven. Then to make it worse any phone technology that might have been harmful would generally cause the worst disease among seriously heavy cellphone users who tend to have the latest and greatest so when investigating a connection you will ask them which technologies they have used and they will probably reply "All of the above" assuming they knew the name of any technology they used.

So the study I would like would involve piles of mice blasted with every technology ever used in general use.

Re:So many differences (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321089)

given how rapidly cell phones went from fancy business/luxury good to ubiquitous and most affordable option for connectivity available, the proof they do not cause cancer is the fact that brain cancer deaths have not shot up massively since 1998

Re:So many differences (1)

Misagon (1135) | about a year and a half ago | (#43324119)

Cancer can take many years before symptoms appear. An example is people in Ukraine and Belarus who were subjected to fallout from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Diagnoses of thyroid cancer (for all age groups) peaked in 1996, ten years after, but people are still being diagnosed with it. ... and this was is ionizing radiation that mutated genes directly during a few days in 1986.

If there are health effects from cell phones, we will probably not see the diagnoses for twenty years. (However, by then the collapse of the world's eco-systems will be a more pressing issue....)

Re:So many differences (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year ago | (#43331743)

peaked is not the same as showing the first signs of an increase.

good good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43319443)

nice post ---- tai game cho dt android [armygame.org] , vua da bong [vuadabong.org] , tai game offline [hayday.mobi]

where did those suitcase phones go? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#43319611)

I dunno, ask the 80's, while bag phones did still exist, they were typically old models still lurking around. My first phone was a self contained model, no bag, but still large ... but my dad had used it for 5 years at that point, and that was in 94. My second phone was a candybar nokia, not much bigger than the HTC I have now.

When I think 90's phone I think of clamshells and candybars, monochrome glcd's and 7 segment OLED's, not some wall street yuppie with a sweater tied around his neck playing tennis with his army radio near by.

Re:where did those suitcase phones go? (1)

ebvwfbw (864834) | about a year and a half ago | (#43325219)

I used a bag phone all the way up to 1996. Sucker put out 5 watts and it was necessary. Lot fewer towers back then. I think they started eliminating the analog around 2000. I think I ended up throwing it away. Still have my pager around here some place. My bag phone was always as far away from me as I could get it.

The good old days. When you left work (the premisis), you left work! Now you leave work and take it home with you. Hardly an escape out there any more.

Or.. (2)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year and a half ago | (#43321419)

Or... You could quit living with that damn thing against your ear 24/7.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>