Implement uBO naming convention

uBlock-and-others:-Blocking-ads,-trackers,-malwares.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ measurement of privacy exposure. The number of requests blocked is no guarantee
 
 Measuring directly the number of distinct 3rd-party domains which were hit is a much better and relevant measurement for comparison of privacy protection efficiency in my opinion.
 
-uBlock and Disconnect required no extra configuration steps. Other blockers required configuration. The one requiring the most configuration for that benchmark was Adblock Plus.
+uBlock Origin (uBO) and Disconnect required no extra configuration steps. Other blockers required configuration. The one requiring the most configuration for that benchmark was Adblock Plus.
 
 ![Privacy benchmark graph](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gorhill/uBlock/master/doc/benchmarks/privex-201502-16.png)
 
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ The URLs (84) from the [reference benchmark](./Reference-benchmark) were used.
 
 Results -- figures are "3rd party / all". Ordered from least 3rd-party hits to most 3rd-party hits. Privacy-wise, lower numbers are better.
 
-#### uBlock 0.8.8.1
+#### uBO 0.8.8.1
 
 - Distinct 1st-party/3rd-party pairs: **491**
 - Scripts: 980 / 1635
@@ -68,15 +68,15 @@ The less distinct 3rd-party/1st-party pairs, the better.
 
 This shows the differences in what was **not** blocked. If something appears on side A but not on side B, this mean side B blocked something not blocked by side A, and vice versa.
 
-- uBlock/ABP: https://www.diffchecker.com/czy6h5lq
-- uBlock/Ghostery: https://www.diffchecker.com/zapbh5b9
-- uBlock/Disconnect: https://www.diffchecker.com/386c367m
+- uBO/ABP: https://www.diffchecker.com/czy6h5lq
+- uBO/Ghostery: https://www.diffchecker.com/zapbh5b9
+- uBO/Disconnect: https://www.diffchecker.com/386c367m
 
-These diffs may help you in deciding whether you should complement uBlock with another blocker, though keep in mind you can always ask uBlock to block more (dynamic filtering may come handy for this).
+These diffs may help you in deciding whether you should complement uBO with another blocker, though keep in mind you can always ask uBO to block more (dynamic filtering may come handy for this).
 
 ### Observations
 
-Using the data diffs, one can observe that with uBlock + default settings, there are large areas of privacy exposure related to:
+Using the data diffs, one can observe that with uBO + default settings, there are large areas of privacy exposure related to:
 
 - `facebook.net` (45)
 - `facebook.com` (44)
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ So if this concerns you (it should), I would say the best way to foil these is t
     facebook.com facebook.net * noop
     twitter.com twitter.com * noop
 
-With these few dynamic filtering rules, you would lower the _"distinct 1st-party/3rd-party pairs"_ figure for uBlock to 318 (from 491). As a bonus, pages will load markedly faster.
+With these few dynamic filtering rules, you would lower the _"distinct 1st-party/3rd-party pairs"_ figure for uBO to 318 (from 491). As a bonus, pages will load markedly faster.
 
 Any of the blocked domains above can easily be unblocked for a specific site. For example, if ever you want Twitter widgets to work when visiting AnandTech, just set `twitter.com` to a local _noop_ for that site, a mere point-and-click when using the dynamic filtering matrix.
 
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ Any of the blocked domains above can easily be unblocked for a specific site. Fo
 All blockers were configured in such a way as to compare apples-vs-apples:
 
 - **Ghostery:** Select all trackers except "Widgets". _"GhostRank"_ not checked. _"Update now"_ clicked (and ensured whatever new filters were used).
-- **uBlock:** Out-of-the-box settings -- no change.
+- **uBO:** Out-of-the-box settings -- no change.
 - **Adblock Plus:** _"EasyList"_ + _"EasyPrivacy"_, _"Peter Lowe's list"_, _"Malware Domains"_ checked. _"Acceptable ads"_ unchecked. _"Update now"_ clicked.
 - **Disconnect:** Out-of-the-box settings -- no change.