Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   

View Poll Results: Smart or not?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Smart

    12 36.36%
  • Not

    21 63.64%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Portland, Oregon USA
    Posts
    7
    Incorrect. They are not downloaded.

    Example a webapge is downloaded. If the webpage contains URLs that contain certain syntax ie /ads/ or a domain name doubleclick.com then they are skipped. They are not downloade thus they are not reported as downloaded, nor viewed.

    If you have more questions you may wish to post at http://adblockplus.org/forum/

    Its really pretty nice. And the ad filters get auto updated every month or so. :-)

    KieranMullen


    Quote Originally Posted by Screenclutter View Post
    Firefox's ad blocker has nothing to do with clicking on or visiting Ken Rockwell's site. It blocks ads from reaching your screen, but the ad information still gets transmitted to the hardware/modem receiving your internet signal.

    Ken Rockwell's target audience are not semi-pros or professionals. His style of writing contains elements of simplicity and confidence that would be attractive to beginners or amateurs (i.e, the general public). The general public would probably shy away from the far more technical reviews (especially those reviews with graphs and data tables) that would be geared towards higher-end users.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    667
    Quote Originally Posted by fionndruinne View Post
    I'm honestly surprised at the amount of positivity towards Ken Rockwell. The guy is a buffoon; I was just reading his "review" of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and shaking my head at how plain dense he can be. Ken has so little imagination or creativity - he develops an opinion right from the get-go, and doesn't have the wherewithal to climb out of the uninformed opinion to something more realistic after more experience with something.

    Plus, his example shots always look horrible. Do beginners look at them and actually desire to create similar photographs? I find that exceedingly unlikely.
    Sounds a lot like today's politicians-people vote for them based on how they feel about the person, and not on the politician's platform, and how they will implement their platform. Ken may not understand photography, but he may understand his target audience better.

    KieranMullen, you might be right, but the general public (which is not most of us here) still go to his site. And many can't be bothered (me included) to install adfilters on Firefox (most use IE). Personally, I use both browsers.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Portland, Oregon USA
    Posts
    7
    There is no might be right. You will find the same words more or less in their fourms.

    Its just not enough to block popups. Your compusters safety and your personal information based on your IP address are at risk,

    IF you are stuck using IE, you can also use ip address of ad companies in your router, or your windows host file.

    \
    http://everythingisnt.com/hosts.html

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,923
    Geez, dude, use your web browser less and get outside more.

    You're giving Firefox and Oregon a bad name.
    Nikon D40 + kit lens

    Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D AF(...or not)

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Portland, Oregon USA
    Posts
    7

    Talking

    I am not afraid of letting people know who I am. (no handle) of where I am. I do make mistakes, I am wrong at times, however this time I don't believe I am.

    Why would you think I need to get out more? :-) Many people work indoors with access to email, Internet and a computer. Is this a surprise?


    KM

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,923
    I just think (well, sometimes I think. Other times... oh well) that to most of us on the DCRP, taking photos matters more than arguing over internet browsers.
    Nikon D40 + kit lens

    Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D AF(...or not)

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,565
    Quote Originally Posted by fionndruinne View Post
    I'm honestly surprised at the amount of positivity towards Ken Rockwell. The guy is a buffoon; I was just reading his "review" of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and shaking my head at how plain dense he can be. Ken has so little imagination or creativity - he develops an opinion right from the get-go, and doesn't have the wherewithal to climb out of the uninformed opinion to something more realistic after more experience with something.

    Plus, his example shots always look horrible. Do beginners look at them and actually desire to create similar photographs? I find that exceedingly unlikely.
    Ummm, I just browsed his review of the Sigma 30mm 1.4......what is the problem? What he is saying fits with what I've heard of the lens. Every time I hear complaints about him it's either a quote taken out of context or a comment like the one above about the sigma 30mm 1.4.


    I don't know where all the dislike is coming from either.... I mean worse things are all over these forums. Is it because he's smart enough to make money off of his opinions and you are not? (that was a general question, not aimed directly at you, fionndruinne.)




    I'm not Ken supporter either.... I just don't get the negativity.

    And Rooz some people would call you an idiot for your thoughts on high ISO..... I guess we all have all the answers, eh?
    5D MK III, 50D, ELAN 7E, 17-40mm 4, Sigma 10mm 2.8 fisheye, 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS, 30mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 580 EX, 430 EX speedlight, Pocket wizard flex and mini.
    Canon G10

    Pentax P30, 50mm 2.0

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,923
    It's just his general uninformativeness, in that review. His stats are pretty much taken straight from other sources, and the "in-the-field" information is negligible. He basically says it's good for photos of "babies and people in low light". Gee, thanks.

    I'd re-evaluate my opinion of him if I got any actually useful information from him. Isn't the information industry about making money by providing information? Ken seems to make it by being a "personality", which is a little close to celebrity for my taste. We have photographic celebs now?
    Nikon D40 + kit lens

    Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D AF(...or not)

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,163
    He's a money making genius. Period. I say stupid stuff all the time too but I haven't yet figured out how to get paid for it.
    Ouch.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Nickcanada View Post
    And Rooz some people would call you an idiot for your thoughts on high ISO..... I guess we all have all the answers, eh?
    not all of us Nick, just a select few. consider yourself lucky that i just happen to one of those few and am able to impart my wisdom on you philistenes. next time, i expect your tone to be appreciative rather than provocative.

    my thoughts on hi-iso are pretty basic. the higher the iso the worse the IQ. is that actually debatable ?

    class dismissed.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •