Nigeria's Online Blog

The internet has lots of benefits but on the other hand, it has its downsides that we all love to hate. The most common one is pop-up ads but if you have young kids who like to surf the net, then as a parent, you will want to protect them from porn sites and any other sites you deem undesirable for such young impressionable minds – such as the Teletubbies.

Well you may not know that it is relatively easy to set up your own internet filter to stop certain websites and pop-up windows from being accessed and shown on your computer – and it already resides on your Windows operating system in the form of the Hosts file. Just adding a line to the file can stop a website or a pop-up window in its tracks.

The Hosts file is located at Windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts. The file has no file format so when you double-click on it, you’ll be asked how you want to open it. Just choose Notepad to open the file as a text file. If you are not so experienced in dealing with the Hosts file, you may want to make a backup of this file before you start altering anything.

When it is opened, this is what you will see :

The first thing you have to notice is the line 127.0.0.1 local host at the bottom. That’s your computer.

To block a website from your browser is very easy. Say you suddenly develop an overwhelming hatred for Google and you want to banish them to the internet graveyard. Time to give it the Hosts file treatment!

On the bottom line of the file (underneath 127.0.0.1 local host), just type :127.0.0.1 www.google.com

Save it and close the file. But there are three things to make sure of to ensure this works properly :

Make sure that the file is still called “hosts” (without a file format at the end such as “hosts.txt”). If Windows attempts to assign a file format to the file, remove it.
Do NOT add “http” at the start of the URL. Doing so makes the entry invalid. Just “www” is enough.
You will probably have to re-start your browser for the changes to start working and in some cases, it may take a minute or two for the URL to be blocked.
Now try to access the site in question. You’ll see that you now get a blank page. Totally inaccessible. Every attempt to access the URL just gets automatically bounced back to you with the blank page.

If you suddenly decide you’re madly in love with Google again, just open up the Hosts document again and delete the line you just inputted. Save and close the file, then re-start the browser. Google will suddenly become available again.

So how does this stop block-up ads? Well when the ad comes up on your screen, take a note of the URL that it is coming from and add it to your Hosts file. Save and close then go back to the website in question. You’ll suddenly find that pop-up ad doesn’t appear anymore!

Now you’re probably saying that with pop-up blockers being standard in browsers these days, what’s the point of this? But pop-up blockers are not 100% perfect. I know of one website that overpowers the pop-up blocker and loads up pop-up windows without any resistance from Firefox or the Google toolbar pop-up blocker. So sometimes you need a little more than your browser to stop those nasty critters.

If you do a Google search, you’ll find people who have compiled lists of malicious URL’s that you can add to your Hosts list. This includes pop-up ads, spyware, trojan horses and porn. But I prefer to just add to the Hosts file myself on a site-by-site basis. Creators of these URL lists can get a bit carried away with privacy and end up giving us URL’s that can block sites we may consider legitimate. So I think it’s best to do it yourself.

So if you have essential sites constantly popping ads up at you or if you want to filter out naughty sites from your kids, the Hosts file is a fairly simple way of doing it.

We may never know why runaway Toyotas suddenly seem to be everywhere. The scariest possibility, however, is that faulty computers are driving some victims to their deaths with frightening randomness. Suspicions that an elusive software glitch in computer-controlled throttles is to blame, combined with powerful images and harrowing tales, has tapped into our primal, science-fiction fueled fear of killer computers.

Whatever the ultimate cause of Toyota's troubles, the possibility of a "ghost in the machine" has consumers wondering about the wisdom of trusting their lives to computers -- machines they know are apt to hiccup and fail. Old-fashioned mechanical linkage between gas pedal and throttle somehow seems safer than the new "drive-by-wire" technology, and this new understanding of just how much of a car's activity is computer-controlled begs the question of whether we've been too fast to trade mechanical for digital.

Or perhaps the Toyota incidents are a signal that we’ve passed some tipping point in the relationship of man to machine? Some experts are wondering if our cars have become so automated and easy to use that drivers are now too detached, unaware of the inherent risks in motoring down a highway at 70 or 80 mph and unprepared to regain control if something goes wrong.

Computers fail in unpredictable ways. What's worse, they seem to fix themselves unpredictably, too. Anyone who's experienced a surprise computer crash, followed by a reboot that seems to magically resolve the problem, understands this maddening element of 21st Century life. Perhaps an IT worker at your office will ask you to reproduce the problem -- but often you can't. So your helper shrugs and smiles and slinks away, and you go back to your tasks, left to wonder when the ghost in your machine may reappear.

It's one thing to lose a document to such a ghost, but quite another to risk your life with one.

Toyota steadfastly maintains it has no ghosts. Still, millions of Americans are now aware of so-called "drive-by-wire" technology that until now they'd been blissfully ignorant of. And they are becoming aware that more by-wire technologies -- brake-by-wire, turn-by-wire, etc. -- will soon put only zeros and ones between them and a potentially deadly accident.

"We are talking about this all the time now,” said Jake Fisher, senior automotive engineer for Consumer Reports. “There is a lot of feeling that having no mechanical linkage sets up a situation where the electronics could go haywire and you couldn't control the car.”

While that may be true, it's a little late for the debate. The first drive-by-wire car was introduced back in 1988, and Toyota began converting all its models to electronic throttles in 2002. The vast majority of new cars sold in the U.S. today uses drive-by-wire. And when new federal regulations requiring a safety tool called electronic stability control kick in during 2012, all cars will employ it.

Computers as scapegoat?

Bill Visnick, senior editor at Edmunds.com, thinks that computers are right now being used as a scapegoat in the Toyota incidents.

"For people looking for an explanation, it seems like a handy one,” Visnick said. “You know, 'Those darn things! Computers control everything nowadays.' People complain that technology has taken over our lives. Well, I'm not ready to go there just yet."

He thinks electronic throttles -- which perform without incident millions of times each day -- will ultimately be exonerated by investigators, but public concerns will force the auto industry to take a new look at its digital conversions.

"This will only increase the discussion about what's an appropriate level of electronic control for devices we use in our cars that are tied to our safety," he said.

Industrial design guru Donald Norman, a professor at Northwestern University, a former Apple Inc. designer and author of “Design of Future Things,” is more skeptical of the throttles and the expanded role of electronics in cars.

"Every company has software problems," said Norman.

The number of possible interactions is huge in a car with dozens of computers on board, so it's impossible for Toyota to be sure its cars are 100 percent clean of software bugs, he said.

"No professional software person ever says that. They say there are 'no known bugs' in the software," said Norman.

Furthermore, because unintended acceleration incidents are rare, finding any potential bugs is even harder. "But just because it can't be reproduced in a lab doesn't make it any less serious," he said.

Safer in the past?

Concerns about random computer errors are justified, Fisher said, but it's important to know that mechanical linkages also fail at random intervals.

"A cable could get kinked, the springs could get stuck, the springs could break. A stuck-open throttle could happen with a mechanical failure, and did happen," he said. Meanwhile, he noted, airplane passengers trust their lives to fly-by-wire technology every day, since commercial airliners have long since traded mechanical for digital controls.

That may be, but the idea that a crazed computer could one day send you hurtling madly down a highway at breakneck speed is enough to give one pause about new technologies. Still, the conversion to digital will be hard to stop, or even slow. Already, designers are well on their way to creating computer-controlled automobiles that will literally drive themselves around town.

But even if electronics aren’t ultimately shown to have been to blame for Toyota's surprise acceleration problem, Norman said, the publicity has brought to light a serious problem with today's heavily-digital cars: We're only half-way to our destination.

"There’s nothing wrong with automation,” he said. “Many automated features are very safe; you never have to think about them, like fuel injection. … The problem with automation is when it's really half-automation."

For example, he said, new features in some luxury cars offer help with staying in lane, with avoiding collisions and with maintaining a constant speed. But none of them is fool-proof, and some might be actually make driving more dangerous by lulling drivers into a false sense of security.

"The automation that's a problem is automation that's not quite there yet, that works fine until it doesn't work,” he said. “....These tools are not really good enough to fully protect you, but they kind of work so you start relying on them, but then they fail and you are dead."

The false sense of security is easily observed during bad weather, each time a four-wheel-drive SUV careens past you down a wet or frozen road at reckless speed. Even though 4WD offers little help with stopping, many drivers seem to feel invincible when driving in storms.

"You see them driving without snow tires, they don't have a sense of the road surface, and when it comes time to stop, they are the first ones to spin off the road," Fisher said.

This is a slight variation of what is sometimes called the Peltzman Effect. In the 1970s, economist Sam Peltzman claimed that car safety devices could be counterproductive because they actually encouraged reckless driving. While some of his claims have been discredited, it's hard to argue that today's drivers aren’t more detached than ever from the physical act of driving. That, in turn, can contribute to unsafe behaviors. Some cars make it possible to drive 90 mph while feeling as comfortable as sitting in a living room chair.

Ease of operation=hard to control

This detachment may be playing a role in the Toyota unintended acceleration tragedies, Fisher said. For example, he said, drivers who pilot manual transmission cars are intimately aware of how to disengage their transmissions from the car's drive train by shifting into neutral, something they do dozens of times each day. But many automatic transmission drivers have never once put their car's gear box into the neutral position and have trouble performing that task in life-threatening crises.

Newer luxury cars have even more automation and ease-of-use features. The car most associated with the acceleration problem, the Lexus ES350, is particularly automated, Fisher said. It boasts push-button starting and a neutral position that's out of the driver's normal operation range.

"It's a very isolating vehicle, he said. “That makes it incredibly easy to operate, but some things, like putting the car in neutral, are not obvious."

Norman disagrees with the detachment premise, and instead blames a lack of standardization in the new feature implementation.

"It's really a design issue," he said. "Every automobile has different ways of handling these things. ... We've all experienced a situation where you are in a new car and you want to blow the horn but you can’t find it. It's the same with the on-off switch."