Hectic weekend

Lots of misinformation out there by people who don't want to actually know what's going on. Mentions on Slashdot, Digg (highly inaccurate), Fark and others. Most were kind enough to allow me to respond. LifeHacker (or should that be LieHacker) posted a bogus "workaround" that is supposed to allow FireFox users the ability to view this site (as if installing IETab is so terribly hard). I tried to respond, but they censored my comment, which was the following (My apologies to Lifehacker. It seems they simply held it because it was the first time I posted. However, their workaround, doesn't actually work)...

It's such a shame that people are so clueless and illiterate. All this fuss because you simply don't want to bother reading the page.

I don't want people accessing my site that use ad blocking software. Seems fair enough to me. 99% of the internet would agree that I should have the right to block access to people who are using that kind of software.

But the AdBlockPlus people make sure site owners cannot block people using their software, so the only alternative they've left me is to block FireFox.

Now comes all the tin-foil-hat wearing paranoids who think only FireFox prevents Bill Gates from controlling them via the chip the CIA put in their head, and in order to convince me that they aren't freeloading criminals, they violate the law and attempt to shut my site down, simply because I want to control how people see my site. Oh, and sites like Shashdot, Digg and others allow commenters to encourage people to violate the law--yet somehow I'm the bad guy.

It's my site, and if I want to control how people view it, I'm not letting a bunch of terrorists force me into changing that--and when you attempt to change someone's behavior by threat of harm, you are a terrorist. The vile, obscene emails and phone calls, the attempts to shut down my server with DOS attacks and bandwidth eating programs, are all acts of terrorism, and it's really interesting how many people who seem to get offended at being called "thieves" have no problems acting like terrorists.

What also amazes me is how much time so many people are wasting trying to change one site that they'd probably never have even visited in the first place. Some people, seriously, need to get a life.

Funny how freedom of speech can be so one sided with some people.

I have had tons of hateful, vile, obscene emails and phone calls (of all hours of the night) as well as illegal attempts to take down my server, all by people who are offended that I would imply that they're unethical. Go figure. One person IM'd me. I don't give out my IM and at first assumed he was a client, but when checking later realized he wasn't. He must have somehow guessed my IM adress. The following is the conversation, with only the obscenities edited. Keep in mind that when I IM I type really fast, and so have lots of typos. I considered cleaning that up, but thought it might be a bit disingenuous. Here's the log of the conversation (which is fairly typical of a lot of what people have been saying)...

Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:32:52 AM): Are you the guy with the Whyfirefoxisblocked site?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:32:57 AM): Yep
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:33:08 AM): And it's not a joke?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:33:35 AM): No, I don't like it when people steal resources, and won't allow me to control the content of my sites.
Danny (8/20/2007 10:33:51 AM): Most of what's being said about it is pur fabrication.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:34:01 AM): I dunno, I read the page with my own eyes.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:34:11 AM): But how can you put the blame for adblocking squarely on Firefox?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:34:21 AM): I didn't...read the page.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:34:55 AM): Well you are aware that Adblock Plus is a third party extension, right? As in, not made by Mozilla?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:35:17 AM): Listed on Mozilla's site. Offered for download on Mozilla's site.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:35:32 AM): Hosted by Mozilla. Not created by them.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:36:01 AM): But anyway, surely you must know that your little script will be easily defeated by spoofing the user agent, right?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:36:04 AM): Hosting is endorsement. If they hosted a KKK plug-in, do you think people would assume there's no endorsement involved?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:36:23 AM): I use more than just a useragent detection
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:36:37 AM): not according to the scripts on your site..
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:36:44 AM): if(strstr($userAgent, 'firefox'))
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:36:48 AM): if(strstr($userAgent, 'firefox'))
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:36:55 AM): whoops
Danny (8/20/2007 10:36:59 AM): You can't see the PHP behind the javascript.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:37:22 AM): how else could you detect they're using firefox, anyway?
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:37:28 AM): (this is just curiosity on my part)
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:37:48 AM): But you really think not viewing the ads is equivalent to theft?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:38:12 AM): FireFox has stubbpornly refused to follow market trends and has insisted on HTML being dictated by W3C. Therefore there are aspects that can then be detected as different from any other browser.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:38:21 AM): oh ok
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:38:40 AM): Oh yeah, that's another thing. You know it's Firefox, and not FireFox, right?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:38:43 AM): Blocking all ads is...not allowing me to block people who block ads is empowering theft.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:39:00 AM): The "Firefox myths" page you happily link to states that as one of the myths.
Danny (8/20/2007 10:39:00 AM): I know, but spelling it FireFox annoys the more radical users.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:39:16 AM): No, it just makes you look uneducated, especially when you link to a site that specifies the opposite
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:39:24 AM): So if I walk away from the TV during the commercials, am I a thief?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:39:45 AM): No, you made a dcision abotu an individual ad. Not the same thing ans blanket ad blocking.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:39:57 AM): No, I pretty much skip them all.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:40:05 AM): Thanks to the glory of the DVR
Danny (8/20/2007 10:40:33 AM): You are still make individual decisions about each ad. Companies that tried to sell devices that blocked television ads were shut down byu the court.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:41:17 AM): Well, regardless of any clever script, how are you going to handle ad blocking at the firewall/web proxy level? Or blocking them with a hosts file?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:41:50 AM): If people block ads (other than adBlockPlus) I can detect it, and redirect them.
Danny (8/20/2007 10:42:07 AM): That's all I'm asking, he right to do that.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:42:12 AM): I'd love to know how you can detect blocking ads from a hosts file
Danny (8/20/2007 10:42:24 AM): It's fairly easy
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:42:51 AM): So you have no problem alienating a growing user base from your sites
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:43:12 AM): people aren't going to switch to another browser just to see crappy ads on some site
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:43:19 AM): they'll just find another site, in which case you lose the ad revenue anyway
Danny (8/20/2007 10:43:40 AM): No, actually many FireFox users agree with me, and while they find it annoying, understand what I'm trying to d. Only the crackpots are making a stink.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:44:21 AM): You might want to take down that link to the Firefox Myths page if you can't even type the name of the browser right.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:45:09 AM): But anyways, to call it theft is a very irresponsible stretch
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:45:37 AM): You're just mad because you lose some ad money. Well boo hoo.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:46:58 AM): I also love how you say at the top of your page that the Digg entry is false, and you don't assert that since Firefox users can block ads they are thieves
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:47:09 AM): but then at the bottom of the page you accuse Mozilla of empowering theft
Danny (8/20/2007 10:47:16 AM): No it's the principle of the thing. If I put ads on a page, that's how I want it viewed. If someone doesn't like that, noone's forcing them to visit the page.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:47:25 AM): do you always contradict yourself?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:48:08 AM): FireFox users are not Mozilla. Mozilla if a corporation (mking millions bythe way) FireFox users are individuals who use the browser. Big difernce.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:48:19 AM): No no.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:48:26 AM): You say Mozilla is "empowering" theft.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:48:33 AM): Which must mean their users are thieves?
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:48:44 AM): Or is there another group they are empowering to be thieves?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:48:48 AM): No, FieFox users are not the Mozxilla Corporation.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:49:08 AM): OK. If Mozilla is empowering theft, who are they empowering to be thieves, if not the users?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:49:19 AM): AdBlockPlus users
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:49:37 AM): a subset of....
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:49:38 AM): Firefox users!
Danny (8/20/2007 10:50:09 AM): There a pedophiles that live in the US. That doesn't make all US citizens pedophiles.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:50:32 AM): Ok, then you are asserting that a subset of Firefox users are thieves, just not all of them.
Danny (8/20/2007 10:50:38 AM): Yes
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:50:51 AM): Not much of a difference.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:50:56 AM): At least be man enough to stand behind your assertions
Danny (8/20/2007 10:50:58 AM): But in order to block them, I must block all FireFox users (except those using IEtab)
Danny (8/20/2007 10:51:26 AM): Jus because you misinterprete soemthing, doesn't make it "my assertion"
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:51:51 AM): What did I misinterpret? You say on your page that a significant subset of Firefox users are thieves.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:52:00 AM): You just agreed with that interpretation yourself.
Danny (8/20/2007 10:52:09 AM): A subset does not equal the whole.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:52:31 AM): That's a very fine distinction you're making, though.
Danny (8/20/2007 10:52:38 AM): Not at all.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:52:48 AM): Your entire page basically amounts to WAAAAAAAAAAHH!!! I won't make as much ad revenue!!!!
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:52:56 AM): Block the big meanies!!
Danny (8/20/2007 10:53:03 AM): Some Black people commit crime. But that does not make all Black people criminals.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:53:34 AM): I didn't say you said all firefox users are thieves
Danny (8/20/2007 10:53:35 AM): No, it amounts to a protest against those who will not allow me to corntrol the content of my sites.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:53:50 AM): You just put it in prettier words
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:53:53 AM): but it's the exact same thing
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:54:12 AM): So tell me, how do you detect if someone is blocking ads with a HOSTS file?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:54:26 AM): So a compkaint you disagree with is a WAAAA, but your complaqint is.....?
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:54:48 AM): parse error
Danny (8/20/2007 10:54:57 AM): If the ad isn't present, it can usually be detected.
Danny (8/20/2007 10:55:25 AM): Besides it'd be almost impossible to block all ads with just the HOSTS file.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:55:42 AM): very true, but blocking some is better than blocking none
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:55:55 AM): nobody wants to see ads, so why do you all jump through hoops to continue to push them in our faces?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:56:02 AM): And I'm not complainign about blocking some, but about blocking all.
Danny (8/20/2007 10:56:14 AM): ...and not letting me block those who do block all ads.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:56:38 AM): BS. Blocking some ads is still "not allowing you to control the content of your site"
Danny (8/20/2007 10:57:06 AM): No one is being forced to visit any of my sites. If they don't want to see the ads--don't go to that site.
Danny (8/20/2007 10:57:22 AM): If I put th4e ad there, then that's how I want the page viewed.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:57:28 AM): Well, too bad!
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:57:33 AM): We'll view the pages how we want.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:57:39 AM): There are IE extensions that block ads too
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:57:49 AM): or if someone is using a text based browser like Links
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:57:55 AM): What about blind users using a screen reader?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:57:55 AM): And I can block people using them--I'm not c0omplainging about that.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:57:57 AM): Will you block all them too?
Danny (8/20/2007 10:58:18 AM): Obscure exceptions hardly prove a point
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:58:39 AM): in your opinion
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:58:51 AM): But you still have yet to portray this as anything less than whining because you won't get as many ad views
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:59:00 AM): You put it in fancy elitist terms, but it doesn't change the fact.
Danny (8/20/2007 10:59:12 AM): And how is complainign aboitu what I'm doing, not whining as well?
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 10:59:58 AM): But I'm not posting a page for all to see, I'm taking my issue up with the initiator of what I take issue with
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:00:13 AM): I'm not putting up a web site www.whydannycarltoniswhiningaboutads.com
Danny (8/20/2007 11:00:37 AM): So are thousands of others. Some in very ahteful and rude way. Some by attempting to bring my server down (illegally) some by calling me in the middle fo the night. And that's not whining?
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:00:58 AM): Are you accusing me of something?
Danny (8/20/2007 11:01:10 AM): I made the domain simply to inform people why they were not seeing my site. I never advertised it, Slashdot, Digg and other sites did.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:01:12 AM): I don't care what others are doing, if they are dealing with it in an admittedly immature way, that is their problem.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:01:31 AM): If you post a page full of sheer idiocy like that, of course the big sites are going to call you on it.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:01:56 AM): It's not idiocy, it's all true. It's just that some people disagree with it, and have been throwing tantrums.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:02:16 AM): You keep telling me what other people are doing as if I have any control over it.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:02:56 AM): You keep protraying my actions as "whining" but don't seem to care about how others reactions actually are.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:03:27 AM): What do any of them have to do with me
Danny (8/20/2007 11:04:10 AM): Intersting that your argument now seems to be that it's all about you. If I complain--it's whining. if you c0omplain--it's lefgitimate. Quite a double standard.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:04:23 AM): Ok, let's review.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:04:36 AM): I'm speaking about the actions of ONE person - you.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:04:43 AM): You're speaking about the actions of a huge number of people.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:04:46 AM): How are these the same?
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:04:50 AM): How is this a double standard?
Danny (8/20/2007 11:04:55 AM): My actions in a vaccum, interpreted through you perceptions.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:06:13 AM): My actions must be determined good or bad, based on either an absolute, or in relative terms. If you use an absolute, you must clearly define that absolute, but alos demonstrate that it's universally applied, maning the actions of other must also be judged on that absolute.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:06:36 AM): However if youm are using a relative assessment, then the actions of others =determeine that "grading curve".
Danny (8/20/2007 11:06:59 AM): So either way the actions of other are part of the rgument.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:07:31 AM): Wow, that made my head hurt
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:08:06 AM): When are people going to realize that inserting obscene numbers of ads on their page just annoys their customers?
Danny (8/20/2007 11:08:21 AM): I don't hae abscene numbers of ads.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:08:29 AM): Dude, what is wrong with your keyboard?
Danny (8/20/2007 11:08:48 AM): I use Google AdSense which they limit to 3 ads per page. I use two of my own ads on some page. That's hardly obscene.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:09:06 AM): I'm typing as I think, and I think faster than I can type.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:09:16 AM): ok
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:09:30 AM): I don't take issue with google adsense, but many sites are not so mild with the ads
Danny (8/20/2007 11:09:46 AM): Then don't go to those sites.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:10:07 AM): As firefox users grow in number, you will alienate a larger growing number of potential site users
Danny (8/20/2007 11:10:07 AM): I avoided About.com for a long time because they used popups. I still hesitate to go there.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:10:19 AM): Are popup blockers Internet theft too?
Danny (8/20/2007 11:10:22 AM): Theri numbers are plateauing.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:10:41 AM): No, popups are an unethiocal merketing practice.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:10:44 AM): Do you get that from your extremely biased Firefox Myths site?
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:10:52 AM): So are web site ads!!!!!!!
Danny (8/20/2007 11:11:16 AM): No, I get that from the stats from a number of sites. The number of FireFox users has only grown by about 1% in the past year.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:11:28 AM): I think their close to their actual saturation point.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:11:42 AM): I hope your statistics skills are better than your web design skills
Danny (8/20/2007 11:11:46 AM): Their marketing strategy turns off a lot of people, which limits their market share.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:11:56 AM): And do you really think it makes you clever to keep deliberately mistyping the name of the browser?
Danny (8/20/2007 11:12:12 AM): I do.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:12:17 AM): I lol'd
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:12:24 AM): Well it doesn't
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:12:33 AM): it makes you look like a ***** who doesn't even know his material properly.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:12:54 AM): It seems to only annoy die-hard FireFox fans.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:13:10 AM): It doesn't annoy me at all, I think it's kinda funny
Danny (8/20/2007 11:13:32 AM): And it's much less obscene than all the nicknames I;ve seen the same group use for Microsoft and Internet Explorer.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:13:51 AM): Are you a Microsoft apologist now?
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:14:27 AM): Microsoft has earned the nicknames it has. Horribly unethical, borderline monopolistic business practices, buggy, insecure software...
Danny (8/20/2007 11:14:29 AM): The company annoys me in many aspects. I think they are abusing their status and not being true to the spirit of Capitalism, which is the idea that competition is always good.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:14:46 AM): But, I like their browser.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:15:02 AM): Well yeah, because it displays your precious ads.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:15:08 AM): Unless they install an extension like IE7Pro
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:15:25 AM): But that's ok.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:15:25 AM): FireFox displays the ads, but that's the only browser AdBlockPlus works in.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:15:40 AM): Opera works fine too, so does Safari. I simply prefer IE.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:15:58 AM): So you're picking on a Firefox extension that blocks ads simply because you don't like Firefox. I see now.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:16:02 AM): And I can block people usng IE7Pro
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:16:12 AM): But you don't
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:16:22 AM): ...do you?
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:16:26 AM): (and it's Adblock Plus, btw)
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:16:28 AM): (two words)
Danny (8/20/2007 11:16:41 AM): No, FireFox is an acceptible browser. I prefer IE. I don't like Mozilla's use of religious language in marketing fireFox, though.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:16:56 AM): Oh, right, of course. You know it's not meant to be serious, right?
Danny (8/20/2007 11:17:09 AM): A lot of people are taking it serous.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:17:24 AM): No, they aren't taking it as a religion. You just like to hop on that angle to further demonize them.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:18:28 AM): And if some weirdo kooks want to take it literally, let them, who cares?
Danny (8/20/2007 11:18:35 AM): They are behaving as if it's their religion. Mozilla needs t be careful about using that angle, because it will back fire ojn them someday. there are a lot of gullible people out ther4e desparately truing to find somethign to latch on toto "give their life menaing" and religious marketing tactics exploits that weakness.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:18:45 AM): Are you serious
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:18:57 AM): You think that desperate people will adopt Mozilla as an actual religion
Danny (8/20/2007 11:19:06 AM): I've seen it in action over the past several days.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:19:20 AM): Dedicated members of a community != a religion.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:19:27 AM): Some Christian fundamentalists can take things to the extreme and be whacko kooks just as much.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:19:30 AM): Scientologists don't actually call what theyn blieve a religion, but it is nonetheless.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:20:11 AM): Yes I agree, there are extremists in every religion, but it's very easy to create one whe you are emplying religious jargon in your markleting strategy.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:20:31 AM): This is ridiculous. I really find it hard to believe that you truly believe that.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:20:37 AM): That is such a stretch, it's almost unfathomable.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:21:08 AM): L Ron Hubbard never set out to create a rekigion, he was simply having fun writing science fiction, then it got out of corntrol.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:22:26 AM): of course, this is the creator of Homeschool Buy, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
Danny (8/20/2007 11:23:10 AM): I built it, someone else owns it and hired me to make it and run it. I do homeschool, though.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:24:03 AM): You do homeschool, huh? You must be extremely skilled in math, science, foreign languages, economics, (revisionist) history,
Danny (8/20/2007 11:25:45 AM): Revision history refers to holocaust deniers. I not only don't deny the holocaust, I've supported Israel quite a bit.In fact some have accused me of being a Massad agent.
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:26:24 AM): To get a better idea of the points I mean, see http://**********
Danny (8/20/2007 11:27:07 AM): That's nasty. WHat's your point?
Firefox Fanboy (8/20/2007 11:27:31 AM): You're a dumb whiny f****, mostly. See ya!

That's the mentality I've had to deal with the past three days. Fortunately in the sea of vulgarity and ignorance are a few rational voices that, while they disagree with me, do so politely and intelligently. Thanks to those for helping me to remember that not all FireFox users are complete crackpots.

UPDATE: LifeHacker finally psted my comment, about three hours after I made it, after several other people had already had their comments appear, who posted after me. Of course it's dated by when it was posted, not when it was finally approved.

UPDATE: It seems some have been claiming that there was never any attempt to harass me. As I write the preceding sentence, I had to stop to answer yet another crank phone call...and there my phone goes again. It is 10:31pm here, there've been 9 bogus calls within the past half an hour.

As for the attempt to take down my server. Here are the Webalizer's stats on usage by "site" (Meaning the canonical name of the computer accessing my site). This is just the top seven. There are plenty more close to the same levels....

Each of these are individual computers attempting to use as much bandwidth as possible on this single account. So far the bandwidth usage for the account, for the past three days is a little over 38gig. There are only two pages on the site. Yet, one computer accessing the site enough to use up over 5.7gig (in this case, overnight) is not a DOS attack? How does that work?

Webalizer only lists the top thirty computers by the number of hits to the site, but the 30 they list (remember, these are individual computers) each made over 10,000 hits apiece, 17 of them over 50,000 hits, 13 of them over 100,000 hits, 2 over a million.

Posted by Danny Carlton at August 20, 2007 12:16 PM