Avoid Unseemly Ads w/ WebWasher
N. Samuel R.
like to suggest a program called Web Washer, which filters most ads.
The program is available free for personal and educational use from
http://www.webwasher.com
--
'Reply-To:' field is set to correct address. Address in 'From:' field is not
checked.
"Holy Sabbath! - the souls of Israel find refuge in the protection of your
wings. They are sated from the abundance of your house." - 'Kah Echsof', R'
Aharon of Karlin, zt'l (Artscroll translation)
Micha Berger
: Being that many banner Ads. have immoral and unseemly content, I would
: like to suggest a program called Web Washer, which filters most ads.
: The program is available free for personal and educational use from
: http://www.webwasher.com
Not sure if this is on topic, but I highly recommend net nanny, which I
set up to do the same for indecent ads. (And I was able to include
"eye candy".) Now that release 4.0 can automatically updates the filter
it is by far the easiest parental tool (including self-parenting) to use.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Binyamin Dissen
:>Being that many banner Ads. have immoral and unseemly content, I would
:>like to suggest a program called Web Washer, which filters most ads.
:>The program is available free for personal and educational use from
:>http://www.webwasher.com
While it is a good product, be aware that it uses more than 10% of system
resources on W98.
A much better approach is a HOSTS file which redirects the HTTP requests to
nowheresville.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
meirm...@erols.com
Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> posted:
>On 1 Aug 2001 13:37:22 GMT "N. Samuel R." <n_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>:>Being that many banner Ads. have immoral and unseemly content, I would
>:>like to suggest a program called Web Washer, which filters most ads.
>
>:>The program is available free for personal and educational use from
>:>http://www.webwasher.com
There is also www.proximetron.com (or Proximitron) which filters ads
in general, unrelated to content. It has a lot of options, but since I
use w98 so little, I don't know how to use them. Or maybe the default
settings are just good enough.
>While it is a good product, be aware that it uses more than 10% of system
>resources on W98.
What happens when one runs out of resources in W98? Does it crash
like in W3.1?
>A much better approach is a HOSTS file which redirects the HTTP requests to
>nowheresville.
That sounds good but how does one do it?
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
Sheldon Glickler
>
> Being that many banner Ads. have immoral and unseemly content, I would
> like to suggest a program called Web Washer, which filters most ads.
>
> The program is available free for personal and educational use from
> http://www.webwasher.com
I hope you realize that the prime reason you are able to type in
this forum is that the internet is financially supported by those
ads. Also, one of the major -- if not THE major -- supporters is
the set of porno and sex sites.
You can try to not have them pop up on your screen, but remember
what greases the skids for the internet.
Just a little information for you.
Shelly
Yisroel Markov
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 1 Aug 2001 14:27:16 GMT Binyamin
> Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> posted:
>
> >On 1 Aug 2001 13:37:22 GMT "N. Samuel R." <n_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >:>Being that many banner Ads. have immoral and unseemly content, I would
> >:>like to suggest a program called Web Washer, which filters most ads.
>
> >:>The program is available free for personal and educational use from
> >:>http://www.webwasher.com
>
> There is also www.proximetron.com (or Proximitron) which filters ads
> in general, unrelated to content.
"Unlike many windows programs which seem to insinuate their way into
your system like some parasitic organism, the Proxomitron...
1 - copies no files to any folders outside its own
2 - makes no changes to your system registry
3 - and modifies no .ini files
It uses very few resources (1,668K on my NT system, and about 40
seconds of CPU time per day) and can be found at
http://proxomitron.cjb.net/
> It has a lot of options, but since I
> use w98 so little, I don't know how to use them. Or maybe the default
> settings are just good enough.
They are. It is a power user tool - you can write custom filters for
just about anything - but can be used as is, easily.
> >While it is a good product, be aware that it uses more than 10% of system
> >resources on W98.
>
> What happens when one runs out of resources in W98? Does it crash
> like in W3.1?
>
> >A much better approach is a HOSTS file which redirects the HTTP requests to
> >nowheresville.
>
> That sounds good but how does one do it?
You find a file called hosts (no extension) in the C:\Windows
directory (it may be in a subdirectory like \System32). Then you
replace it with a file that lists the names of the unwanted sites and
assigns them the localhost IP address of 127.0.0.1, effectively
trashing all requests your browser may send to these sites. The
problem is, you need a hosts file that lists the sites you want
blocked.
I use Proxomitron and a hosts file I found on the net that lists about
400 advertising and sex sites. But I suspect that there are way more
sex sites out there than 400 :-) The best policy is still "don't go
there".
Also, on some systems, blocking external ads via the hosts file can
prevent the pages from displaying. It happens on my home machine which
runs Win95 - if a site has an external ad from ad.doubleclick.com, the
whole page will return a "site busy" error. Here on NT, it's only the
ad that's blanked out.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Eliyahu
"Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B681813...@mediaone.net...
and spam) are for investment opportunities, fake degrees and online casinos.
Am I doing something wrong or visiting the wrong sites on the net? :-)
Seriously, when I was working in tech support, some of my customers would
ask about internet filter software for their kids. I generally recommended
the Hate Filter that the ADL has advertised on their site. While the best
"filter" is for parents to keep an eye on what their kids do and where they
go online, I am also still of the opinion that there are far greater risks
in exposing children to hate-sites like Aryan Nations, Islamic Jihad, "G-d
Hates Fags," nazi and white supremicist sites, etc, than there are if they
look at nekked women. The human body is G-d's creation. Hate-mongering,
OTOH, is strictly a human effort.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
N. Samuel R.
news:tmgieki...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "N. Samuel R." wrote:
> > >
> > > Being that many banner Ads. have immoral and unseemly content,
E.:
> I don't seem to get any of those ads. Most of the ones I get (both pop-ups
> and spam) are for investment opportunities, fake degrees and online casinos.
> Am I doing something wrong or visiting the wrong sites on the net? :-)
To clarify: I did not mean content that would literally be considered
pornographic under current (outrageously low) societal standards but was
referring-to images that from a Torah-perspective are immoral, such as
less-than-fully clothed people with suggestive expressions and positions. Much
of this content is objectionable to many non-Orthodox people as well.
(This is the reason I stopped using AllAdvantage (program where you get paid for
running an ad banner while your online) and free ISP's some time ago. )
Having said that, I must point-out that there have been times when I was
visiting perfectly innocent sites and saw banner ads that were, even according
to current low societal standards, absolutely, literally pornographic.
I recall this happening once during the days of the late Deja-alternative
'Remarq' and once on Deja itself while reading posts on centipedes in Hawaii in
the archives.
I absolutely maintain that despite the definite advantages and constructive,
positive uses of the internet, in the final analysis, it would have been far
better had the internet never been created. The internet has stolen the
innocence of countless children and poisoned the souls of countless people.
If certain circumstances were different for me, I would have nothing to do with
it. One thing is for sure, if I b'ezras Hashem have children one day, I will
not allow any computer w/ internet access in the home.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>Being that many banner Ads. have immoral and unseemly content, I would
>like to suggest a program called Web Washer, which filters most ads.
What's wrong with unseemliness? Unseemliness is fun.
-Naomi
"Cease, then, to fashion state-made sin
Nor give your children cause to doubt
That virtue springs from iron within,
Not lead without." Rudyard Kipling
N. Samuel R.
news:9k91m7$o2h$3...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> On 1 Aug 2001 13:37:22 GMT, N. Samuel R. <n_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : Being that many banner Ads. have immoral and unseemly content, I would
> : like to suggest a program called Web Washer, which filters most ads.
> : The program is available free for personal and educational use from
> : http://www.webwasher.com
>
> Not sure if this is on topic, but I highly recommend net nanny, which I
> set up to do the same for indecent ads. (And I was able to include
> "eye candy".) Now that release 4.0 can automatically updates the filter
> it is by far the easiest parental tool (including self-parenting) to use.
It is absolutely on-topic because avoiding such sights is a fundamental
obligation of Judaism.
It should be noted that NONE of the filtering software available is anything
close to foolproof, for two main reason:
1. None can filter _all_ of the problematic content and
2. A computer-savvy child who is determined to see what is he supposed to will
be able to get around any filtering program and it is very often the childern
who are far-more computer-savvy than the adults of the house.
Webwasher filters many Ads. but in my experience many have made it past it.
Aren't the pop-up ads a nuisance?! These new 'x-10' ones are just horrible.
N. Samuel R.
news:tmgieki...@corp.supernews.com...
> I don't seem to get any of those ads. Most of the ones I get (both pop-ups
> and spam) are for investment opportunities, fake degrees and online casinos.
> Am I doing something wrong or visiting the wrong sites on the net? :-)
>, than there are if they
> look at nekked women. The human body is G-d's creation.
Halevai that the worst thing available on the internet (and in general) would
merely be pictures of unclothed people; there is far, far worse. You are not so
naive that you didn't realize that , are you?
meirm...@erols.com
R." <n_...@hotmail.com> posted:
>"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:tmgieki...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> I don't seem to get any of those ads. Most of the ones I get (both pop-ups
>> and spam) are for investment opportunities, fake degrees and online casinos.
>> Am I doing something wrong or visiting the wrong sites on the net? :-)
>
>
>>, than there are if they
>> look at nekked women. The human body is G-d's creation.
I don't know why Eliyahu felt the need to contrast racist hate sites
with naked women, and to use 'nekked' in order make fun of the
prurient display of naked women as if only rural Southern (Baptists?)
were bothered by this. In light of his designation O, not that others
don't care, I would think he would be concerned about all of these
things together.
>Halevai that the worst thing available on the internet (and in general) would
>merely be pictures of unclothed people; there is far, far worse.
I think Eliyahu was indeed responding to you because Shelly's post was
ironic and this part of E's post seemed much more relevant to yours
than Shelly's.
In fairness, he got the impression that that was what most concerned
you because it was the only thing you mentioned in your first post in
the thread, which he was replying to.
Now I can easily imagine some good reasons for that that don't imply
your only concern was about porn. One has already occurred to me, that
while other filters filter out what's currently known as porn,
WebWasher somehow uses stricter standards. Eliyahu is always urging
us to resolve things in a non-disputative way and I think here is a
case where he could have.
> You are not so
>naive that you didn't realize that , are you?
But otoh, you must have too quickly forgotten the line that preceded
the one you quoted, where he said " I am also still of the opinion
that there are far greater risks in exposing children to hate-sites
like Aryan Nations, Islamic Jihad, "G-d Hates Fags," nazi and white
supremicist sites, etc," People should double-check before snipping.
I have my own idea who screwed up more in this thread so far, but I'll
leave it as an exercise for the reader. I'd really rather not grade
the exercise publicly, though, but if you want a grade or want to know
what *I* think, I'd rather you emailed me than try to evaluate
publicly who surpassed the other.
N. Samuel R.
news:9k9nfp$3canu$1...@ID-67534.news.dfncis.de...
> >, than there are if they
> > look at nekked women. The human body is G-d's creation.
>
> Halevai that the worst thing available on the internet (and in general) would
> merely be pictures of unclothed people; there is far, far worse. You are not
so
> naive that you didn't realize that , are you?
I hereby retract the last sentence; it was gratuitously provocative.
Eliyahu
<meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bs7hmtcjehgcgdh6l...@4ax.com...
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 1 Aug 2001 22:24:07 GMT "N. Samuel
> R." <n_...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> >"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:tmgieki...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >> I don't seem to get any of those ads. Most of the ones I get (both
pop-ups
> >> and spam) are for investment opportunities, fake degrees and online
casinos.
> >> Am I doing something wrong or visiting the wrong sites on the net? :-)
> >
> >
> >>, than there are if they
> >> look at nekked women. The human body is G-d's creation.
>
> I don't know why Eliyahu felt the need to contrast racist hate sites
> with naked women, and to use 'nekked' in order make fun of the
> prurient display of naked women as if only rural Southern (Baptists?)
> were bothered by this. In light of his designation O, not that others
> don't care, I would think he would be concerned about all of these
> things together.
>
southerners. Having lived in Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Lousiana in
the past, I know that being a redneck or a hillbilly is an attitude, not a
geographical attribute.
The reason I contrasted racist hate sites with sex is because most of the
proponents of web filters put their entire emphasis on the latter, and I
feel that there is far more danger in the former. That doesn't mean that I'd
recommend porn for family viewing or would approve of kids exploring those
sites; rather, that there is less danger there than in sites that actively
promote hatred and violence.
> >Halevai that the worst thing available on the internet (and in general)
would
> >merely be pictures of unclothed people; there is far, far worse.
>
No doubts about that... When I was working as a criminal defense paralegal,
one of my main jobs was research on the net, and I've found stuff that would
shock even the most avid web surfer here. As I said in my earlier post, the
important thing in assuring the safety of kids on the net is the presence of
parents nearby when they're using the computer. The average teen is a far
more sophisticated net user than the average adult, but it isn't going to
make much difference if mom or dad is nearby and keeping an eye on the
computer. There are programs available that will secretly monitor computer
use, tracking every keystroke and image displayed on the screen, and I can
think of situations where they would be useful. I would be reluctant to
recommend them for most people simply because their use involves a breakdown
of trust.
While I have some protective software on my own computers, (a good virus
scan and ZoneAlarm's excellent firewall (free for individual use, btw)) I
prefer to use my own sense and judgement about what I'll view and read. If I
find myself someplace I don't want to be, I can back out easily. Even a
mousetrapped site requires just a couple keystrokes to escape. Filtering
software too often uses keywords that block out legitimate sites as well as
unsavory ones.
meirm...@erols.com
R." <n_...@hotmail.com> posted:
>"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
>news:9k91m7$o2h$3...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> On 1 Aug 2001 13:37:22 GMT, N. Samuel R. <n_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> : Being that many banner Ads. have immoral and unseemly content, I would
>> : like to suggest a program called Web Washer, which filters most ads.
>> : The program is available free for personal and educational use from
>> : http://www.webwasher.com
>>
>> Not sure if this is on topic, but I highly recommend net nanny, which I
>> set up to do the same for indecent ads. (And I was able to include
>> "eye candy".) Now that release 4.0 can automatically updates the filter
>> it is by far the easiest parental tool (including self-parenting) to use.
>
>It is absolutely on-topic because avoiding such sights is a fundamental
>obligation of Judaism.
>
>It should be noted that NONE of the filtering software available is anything
>close to foolproof, for two main reason:
>
>1. None can filter _all_ of the problematic content and
>
>2. A computer-savvy child who is determined to see what is he supposed to will
>be able to get around any filtering program and it is very often the childern
>who are far-more computer-savvy than the adults of the house.
That's why I want to have children, so they can explain it to me.
>Webwasher filters many Ads. but in my experience many have made it past it.
>
>Aren't the pop-up ads a nuisance?! These new 'x-10' ones are just horrible.
That's why people should learn to use cntl-w (or the equivalent if it
is not always like Netscape.). Easier and quicker than the mouse. Can
do it as soon as the outline shows.
Yes I know that if everyone stops displaying the ads, they will make
it harder to do that, or the net will have to charge somehow. I do
spend extra money at my local hardware store to keep it in business
and not just the mega-stores. But at a penny or two? a screen, it
doesn't seem to apply here.
Abe Kohen
"N. Samuel R." <n_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9k9n5g$38jec$1...@ID-67534.news.dfncis.de...
>
> Aren't the pop-up ads a nuisance?! These new 'x-10' ones are just
horrible.
I have been trying out the Pop-Up Stopper from www.panicware.com
Abe
August 1, 2001 10:27 pm EDT
N. Samuel R.
> R." <n_...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> >"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:tmgieki...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >> I don't seem to get any of those ads. Most of the ones I get (both pop-ups
> >> and spam) are for investment opportunities, fake degrees and online
casinos.
> >> Am I doing something wrong or visiting the wrong sites on the net? :-)
> >
> >
> >>, than there are if they
> >> look at nekked women. The human body is G-d's creation.
>
> I don't know why Eliyahu felt the need to contrast racist hate sites
> with naked women, and to use 'nekked' in order make fun of the
> prurient display of naked women as if only rural Southern (Baptists?)
> were bothered by this. In light of his designation O, not that others
> don't care, I would think he would be concerned about all of these
> things together.
You make excellent points here.
> >Halevai that the worst thing available on the internet (and in general) would
> >merely be pictures of unclothed people; there is far, far worse.
>
> I think Eliyahu was indeed responding to you because Shelly's post was
> ironic and this part of E's post seemed much more relevant to yours
> than Shelly's.
>
> In fairness, he got the impression that that was what most concerned
> you because it was the only thing you mentioned in your first post in
> the thread, which he was replying to.
It was because :
1. the program I recommended, WebWasher, blocks banner ads, not based on
content, just all banner ads that it can (which is most but not all). WW doesn't
block any websites themselves.
2. Stumbling upon hate sites isn't going cause me to hate or to share their
views, while stumbling across selatious images is going to corrupt my thoughts
and soul.
>
> Now I can easily imagine some good reasons for that that don't imply
> your only concern was about porn. One has already occurred to me, that
> while other filters filter out what's currently known as porn,
> WebWasher somehow uses stricter standards. Eliyahu is always urging
> us to resolve things in a non-disputative way and I think here is a
> case where he could have.
>
> > You are not so
> >naive that you didn't realize that , are you?
>
> But otoh, you must have too quickly forgotten the line that preceded
> the one you quoted, where he said " I am also still of the opinion
> that there are far greater risks in exposing children to hate-sites
> like Aryan Nations, Islamic Jihad, "G-d Hates Fags," nazi and white
> supremicist sites, etc," People should double-check before snipping.
No because I wasn't referring to those kind of sites when I said that there is
far worse, I was referring to hardcore porn. as opposed to merely pictures of
nude people. The hardcore porn that is out there has absolutely no limits; there
are things that could even make the Marquis de Sade blush.
N.R.
> I hope you realize that the prime reason you are able to type in
> this forum is that the internet is financially supported by those
> ads. Also, one of the major -- if not THE major -- supporters is
> the set of porno and sex sites.
>
> You can try to not have them pop up on your screen, but remember
> what greases the skids for the internet.
Would you not the use the autobahn on principal?
--
Address in 'From:' field is not checked. Email to: n UNDERSCORE r AT
mindspring DOT com
N.R.
> : Being that many banner Ads. have immoral and unseemly content, I would
> : like to suggest a program called Web Washer, which filters most ads.
> : The program is available free for personal and educational use from
> : http://www.webwasher.com
>
> Not sure if this is on topic, but I highly recommend net nanny, which I
> set up to do the same for indecent ads. (And I was able to include
> "eye candy".) Now that release 4.0 can automatically updates the filter
> it is by far the easiest parental tool (including self-parenting) to use.
I wish to share some excerpts from an excellent piece on the internet from a
Torah perspective by Rabbi Tzvi Black at
http://jewishamerica.com/ja/features/caught.cfm
____________________Begin Quoted Text_______________________________
I do feel that those who need the Internet for business needs should avail
themselves of whatever protection these products provide. I believe that this is
the opinion of the majority of our Torah leadership.
Business management can get Information about KosherNet from www.TheKosher.Net.
However, Internet for family usage is a different matter.
From my perspective as a computer professional, I advise families to ignore
these claims. The technologies are simply too complex and they change too
rapidly. Give the child a computer with modem, a bit of determination, a friend
that is with it, and parents that are not highly knowledgeable about computers
and he/she will be on-line in no time.
--------------
[...] since these products do not and can not block every negative influence,
they can provide a false sense of security to the novice computer user.
-----
There may be exceptional circumstances when Torah guidance advises a family to
obtain access to the world wide web. If Internet is in the home, the family must
actively manage the risks and dangers. In these cases, some protection is better
than none and I would strongly recommend a filtering product.
____________________End Quoted Text______________________________________
Rabbi Black then goes on to suggest specific guidelines for the above cases.
maxine in ri
> I don't seem to get any of those ads. Most of the ones I get (both pop-ups
> and spam) are for investment opportunities, fake degrees and online casinos.
> Am I doing something wrong or visiting the wrong sites on the net? :-)
I get the ones for get-out-of-debts, fake degrees, and gambling.
Why? any profile of mine says I have the lowest income available,
the highest age allowed by the software (it doesn't believe I'm 120
years old), and no interests to speak of.
> Seriously, when I was working in tech support, some of my customers would
> ask about internet filter software for their kids. I generally recommended
> the Hate Filter that the ADL has advertised on their site. While the best
> "filter" is for parents to keep an eye on what their kids do and where they
> go online, I am also still of the opinion that there are far greater risks
> in exposing children to hate-sites like Aryan Nations, Islamic Jihad, "G-d
> Hates Fags," nazi and white supremicist sites, etc, than there are if they
> look at nekked women. The human body is G-d's creation. Hate-mongering,
> OTOH, is strictly a human effort.
> --
> Eliyahu Rooff
My little one doesn't do much net surfing, and is only allowed the
sites that we have set up in her bookmark folder (certain kids
shows, homework helpers, etc.) So far, she has not ventured beyond
those. But she does listen to the news, and we talk about the
people who senselessly hate, kill, or otherwise harm others for no
reason but their color or belief.
I agree that children should be shielded, and that we should shield
ourselves from impropriety, but they should also be armed with (age
appropriate) knowledge of what evil is, and what they can and cannot
do about it.
maxine in ri
Mntnmensch
>From: "N. Samuel R." n_...@hotmail.com
>Date: Wed, Aug 1, 2001 9:37 AM
>Message-id: <9k7eb3$3241m$1...@ID-67534.news.dfncis.de>
>
>Being that many banner Ads. have immoral and unseemly content, I would
>like to suggest a program called Web Washer, which filters most ads.
What a dark and twisted world you live in.
j
rrobbi
which was recommended by Walter Mossberg in his column in the Wall
Street Journal. (The web site is adsubtract.com.) This program not
only blocks ads from popping up, but also blocks cookies from being
placed on your computer, and permits you to review and delete all the
cookies you don't want. It has been very easy to use. There is a
more expensive version of Ad Subtract that blocks pop-up windows, like
those ads for the X-10 cameras, but I haven't tried it.
By the way, I have no interest of any sort in Ad Subtract. I just
thought I would report on my experiences.
Sheldon Glickler
>
> Sheldon Glickler <shel...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>
> > I hope you realize that the prime reason you are able to type in
> > this forum is that the internet is financially supported by those
> > ads. Also, one of the major -- if not THE major -- supporters is
> > the set of porno and sex sites.
> >
> > You can try to not have them pop up on your screen, but remember
> > what greases the skids for the internet.
>
> Would you not the use the autobahn on principal?
??????
Shelly
(who has used the autobahn)
Eliyahu
the Third Reich. (FWIW, there are still quite a few of us who won't own or
drive German-made cars on principle.) What he's overlooked is that while the
Third Reich is relegated to the dustbins of history, the porn industry is
still one of the biggest moneymakers on the net. (If not _the_ biggest.)