On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:02:43 -0500, Jack the Ripper
wrote:

Cody Jarrett wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote:

"Cody Jarrett" wrote in message
news I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
the crap it found compared to all the others.
That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using
Ad-Aware.

To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that
needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about.

It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies,
and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding
false positives than others.

Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run
Ad-Aware.

LOL, and you do know that the machine cannot be attacked by a Web
browser cookie, since its only text and is not executable code. That's
all Ad-Aware every found on any of my machines too, cookies. So, I
stopped using it.

I've never had a virus/malware problem in many online years. If I
needed disk/RAM space and couldn't afford to buy more, those programs
would be the first to go.

Cody Jarrett wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote:

"Cody Jarrett" wrote in message
news
I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
the crap it found compared to all the others.
That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using
Ad-Aware.

To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that
needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about.

It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies,
and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding
false positives than others.

Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run
Ad-Aware.


Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles.
Why should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported
to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this
information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I
feel like a drone.

--
Dave T.


You can't imagine the extra work I had when I was a god. - Hirohito,
Emporer of Japan

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:30:53 -0800, "Dave T."
wrote:

Cody Jarrett wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote:

"Cody Jarrett" wrote in message
news I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
the crap it found compared to all the others.
That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using
Ad-Aware.

To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that
needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about.

It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies,
and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding
false positives than others.

Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run
Ad-Aware.


Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles.
Why should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported
to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this
information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I
feel like a drone.

The only "tracking" cookies on my machine are some from shopping sites
I frequent that Ad-Aware (and no other malware scanner) identifies.
All cookies other than those I've purposely saved (CCleaner option)
get deleted using CCleaner several times a day.

In days of old, the worst it found was cookies from doubleclick

Not worth worrying about.

Cody Jarrett wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:30:53 -0800, "Dave T."
wrote:

Cody Jarrett wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote:

"Cody Jarrett" wrote in message
news I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
the crap it found compared to all the others.
That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using
Ad-Aware.
To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that
needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about.

It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies,
and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding
false positives than others.

Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run
Ad-Aware.

Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles.
Why should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported
to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this
information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I
feel like a drone.

The only "tracking" cookies on my machine are some from shopping sites
I frequent that Ad-Aware (and no other malware scanner) identifies.
All cookies other than those I've purposely saved (CCleaner option)
get deleted using CCleaner several times a day.

In days of old, the worst it found was cookies from doubleclick

Not worth worrying about.


I know what you mean. I was just being the devil's advocate and not too
well I'm afraid.

I guess the only point I was trying to make is that in the opinion of
many, privacy is an issue that in the future could become more important
than just the handling of cookies. Our President has demanded that all
medical records be placed on line, and he cites numerous good reasons
for wanting that. Makes me wonder. If you don't mind (and I know you
don't), I think I will opt to attempt to achieve total privacy up to and
including the stuff that's not worth worrying about.

--
Dave T.


You can't imagine the extra work I had when I was a god. - Hirohito,
Emporer of Japan

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:03:09 -0800, "Dave T."
wrote:

Cody Jarrett wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:30:53 -0800, "Dave T."
wrote:

Cody Jarrett wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote:

"Cody Jarrett" wrote in message
news I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
the crap it found compared to all the others.
That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using
Ad-Aware.
To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that
needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about.

It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies,
and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding
false positives than others.

Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run
Ad-Aware.

Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles.
Why should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported
to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this
information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I
feel like a drone.

The only "tracking" cookies on my machine are some from shopping sites
I frequent that Ad-Aware (and no other malware scanner) identifies.
All cookies other than those I've purposely saved (CCleaner option)
get deleted using CCleaner several times a day.

In days of old, the worst it found was cookies from doubleclick

Not worth worrying about.


I know what you mean. I was just being the devil's advocate and not too
well I'm afraid.

I guess the only point I was trying to make is that in the opinion of
many, privacy is an issue that in the future could become more important
than just the handling of cookies. Our President has demanded that all
medical records be placed on line, and he cites numerous good reasons
for wanting that. Makes me wonder. If you don't mind (and I know you
don't), I think I will opt to attempt to achieve total privacy up to and
including the stuff that's not worth worrying about.

You're slamming the barn door after all the livestock has escaped.

There is so much about you on file now that any attempt by you to
protect your privacy is way too late.

"Jack the Ripper" wrote in message
...
Cody Jarrett wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote:

"Cody Jarrett" wrote in message
news I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
the crap it found compared to all the others.
That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped
using Ad-Aware.

To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that
needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about.

It's a great "tracking cookie" finder (I have many saved so cookies,
and it doesn't like a lot of those), and it is much better finding
false positives than others.

Next time I want a cookie finder and false-positive finder, I'll run
Ad-Aware.

LOL, and you do know that the machine cannot be attacked by a Web browser
cookie, since its only text and is not executable code. That's all
Ad-Aware every found on any of my machines too, cookies. So, I stopped
using it.


When I began using Ad-Aware, my computer had very limited resources; both
limited memory and processor. After using Ad-Aware the first time, I got a
very noticeable performance improvement, with emphasis on very. Later, when
I was having difficulty with a particular web site, I ran Ad-Aware and then
I was able to use the web site. Before using Ad-Aware, my session timed out
after about 30 minutes; after Ad-Aware, it took a couple of minutes at most
to get what I needed. If my Outlook Express took too much time to respond
for writing messages, I would run Ad-Aware and the delay would go away.

I understand your logic that cookies are just text. I am not sure what is
happening, but my guess is that the logic is in the web pages and that
processes the data in the cookies. That uses resources. I understand that it
does not make sense that such a thing could affect (infect) OE, but Ad-Aware
can remove problems that can affect OE, and most everything Ad-Aware has
removed in my system is cookies.

"Dave T." wrote in message
...
Cody Jarrett wrote:

Cody, I agree with you completly. I live by absolutely NO principles. Why
should I care if my cyber-wanderings are recorded and reported
to...someone? I don't care who knows. I don't care who is sold this
information. I don't care what that someone does with the info. Damn, I
feel like a drone.

There are at least two reasons it matters.

One reason is that the information is valuable and people should expect to
share the benefits. Many (most) grocery stores now issue "membership"
benefits that can result in significant savings. The advantage for the
businesses is that they get to track us and keep track of what we purchase.
We often don't get benefits such as this from our online purchases.

Another thing is that spammers have more accurate information about us so
they can be more accurate in whatever your vulnerabilities are.

I don't know the extent of the potential use of information gathered without
our knowledge for evaluating us in terms of credit and such, but as far as I
know there is no law preventing that.

"Cody Jarrett" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:59:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
wrote:

"Cody Jarrett" wrote in message
news

I will add that I quit using Ad-Aware a few years ago because of all
the crap it found compared to all the others.

That is a little confusing. My interpretation of what you said is that
Ad-Aware found so much stuff that you did not want that you stopped using
Ad-Aware.

To make it simpler for you: what it found was NOT something that
needed removing, but something I couldn't have cared less about.


Note that I wasn't criticizing you but you are being critical of me by
saying "simpler for you".

Probably you will feel a need to respond with another criticism, and I will
probably let you have the last "word".

If anyone has the time to give Lavasoft a hand, the rest of the world will
benefit. Whether or not you use Ad-Aware, many do who can't learn something
new, and if they all start getting infected, it will spread to you, your
fight will be more work... Read on.


AA AE is actually finding a lot false positives in every OS. A couple weeks
ago things started going bad with Lavasft for some reason.

A while back you may remember they added a small grey popup to get people to
by the upgrade to plus or pro.

That wasn't even the first sign of problems, roughly 2 years ago they got
some heat with the law.

Don't get me wrong, I do know the full history of Ad-Aware as a product
originaly started by Steve Gibson called OPT-OUT.

As with all programs INCLUDING OS's, as they grow bigger, they grow
DEFECTIVE, and there is no way around it.

This new AE version is a pretty good IDEA and only that, what they have done
might eventually work well on a smack-n-toss, with the directions of Windows,
Vista and Ze7en, it's going to be very hard for them to work out the bugs.

Especially since it seems they haven't been able to keep their web site
stable for the last few weeks.

I have found aa 2008 is working fine except for the dam nag screen, and the
popups... sort of ironic, isn't it.... Anti-Spyware with NAG screens and
POP-UPS....

Anyone hear any recent news on their court proceedings? How much trouble
their in?

I hope they pull through, too many people out there that don't know enough
about computers to stay safe, and the more of them, the worse it is for the
rest of us...

Use file.net and bleepingcomputer.com and auditmypc.com to look up files and
see what they are. You will get a lot of good ideas as to what should be
done. BUT.... Even they run GOOGLE ads, be careful not to click on them,
google promotes maleware ads, they don't care who they sell space to.

DO NOT TRUST Windows Defender, I haven't seen it find one thing yet. I'm too
busy to work on that one....

Enjoy............................................. ..................................

Coal, a high carbon type called "Anthracite", is a word that comes from a
Greek word we know as "Anthrax"......

As you say, Ad-Aware is not free anymore; we must pay for it either directly
or indirectly. So Lavasoft doesn't need any special support.

Ad-Aware is not an anti-virus program or anything such as that; it does not
eliminate any software that propagates itself.



"ze7en" wrote in message
...
If anyone has the time to give Lavasoft a hand, the rest of the world will
benefit. Whether or not you use Ad-Aware, many do who can't learn
something
new, and if they all start getting infected, it will spread to you, your
fight will be more work... Read on.