Slashdot Mirror

The key to extradition between countries is that the accusation needs to be for a crime for which an extradition treaty exists. Between the US and NZ, here is a listing (which is typical of other country treaties with the US): https://internationalextraditi... ... I did RTFA, but did not find a link to the NZ court ruling to confirm the extent to which this bilateral extradition treaty was the basis for the ruling.

Dotcom is accused of racketeering and money laundering, which would seem to be covered in the treaty section on fraud: "16. Obtaining property, money or valuable securities by false pretenses or by conspiracy to defraud the public or any person by deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether such deceit or falsehood or any fraudulent means would or would not amount to a false pretense." The definition of racketeering is something like, "dishonest and fraudulent business dealings."

International extradition treaties are part of why plaintiffs and prosecutors seek such high crimes, in their charges. The article links to the US court filing, if you want to see the full list. Another reason is that, in the US, criminal charges are made at the highest possible level of seriousness, so that there will be a plea bargain for a lower charge, rather than bringing a case all the way to the end. Federal prosecutions in the US very rarely result in Not Guilty or in charges being dismissed (under 5%).

That EU law that got struck down yesterday was part of an industry effort to add copyright infringement to the set of laws that would let enforcement cross national boundaries. For copyright, there is no current international extradition (at least, not with the US -- the EU has been doing its own thing). The Berne Convention, and associated treaties under WIPO, are the applicable international treaties for copyright, and do not make provisions for extradition or international enforcement for copyright violation. The fact that international boundaries are usually very easy to cross via Internet traffic is a big concern for publishers, media companies, etc., and they have been trying for a long time to extend reach of copyright laws beyond national boundaries.

One of the earliest such cases was in 2000, and involved a US copyright law forbidding reverse engineering of encryption. The DeCSS case, https://www.technewsworld.com/..., was to bring charges against Jon Johansen in Norway for posting a decryption program. Nowadays, I would expect charges in US courts would also include crimes for which extradition treaties apply, like fraud and larceny. This is easily achieved by stipulating large $ damages (due to lost revenue, piracy, etc.).

More recently, we know that Julian Assange is concerned about being extradited to the US under a secret indictment in the US courts. The rape charges in Sweden were sufficient for extradition from the UK (https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-justice/international-judicial-co-operation/extradition-for-criminal-offences/), but Ecuador has an approach that gives higher priority to avoiding torture than the bilateral treaties. The Guardian has a nice short cheeky piece about why Edward Snowden was also thought to be en route to Ecuador, before he ended up staying in Russia: https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

We are getting the picture, right? The US isn't the only country that seeks very high-level crimes in what are basically copyright cases, nor are they the only country where moneyed business interests are able to get the ear of criminal courts for issues that are, essentially, civil cases (a distinction that matters a lot in countries that follow common law... less so for countries with different legal heritage, like Ge

No.

Google tries to keep malware out of the play store but malware does make it's way into the play store.

Things like this are constantly popping up... Thinking that only using the google play store is enough is wrong.

http://www.technewsworld.com/s...

http://www.zdnet.com/article/c...

Massive zero day Linux security hole. Another one. Argh. http://www.technewsworld.com/s...

Has that been tested?

Yes, it has. The government can compel you to decrypt. But they cannot compel you to admit that you know the key if knowing the key is in itself incriminating. So it is complicated.

Yeah...the idea that companies make money off of software is absurd. Who cares that a company like Valve spends millions on developing games...they should be free.

You're such a genius!!!

Open source and making money are not mutually exclusive. Here's some proof. BringsApples is commenting on the successful transition away from proprietary file formats and vendor lock-in. MS is a cut-throat competitor and want as many people to buy into their ecosystem as possible, and they do their damnedest to keep them in that ecosystem... by releasing new "latest and greatest, you must have this for security blah blah". Then they limit what is available for that OS, "you can't have Office 2000 anymore!!! Buy 2010 for that Windows 8 machine!". Those prices keep going up. Munich decided enough was enough, and is now a success story in conversion to an open system.

If you want to support your local government spending money on unnecessary HW/SW upgrades, vote "yes" next to every tax increase. I'm sure they'll find a way to spend those dollars.

The person asking the question thinks the solution to needing to provide Wifi Hotspots is to use cellular based devices and maybe try to find a way to get better 4G coverage.

You're trying to solve the wrong problem. Using 4G to provide wifi has several drawbacks, first is cost. Second, you can't get the bandwidth you really need, and third, you have to compete with every device there trying to connect to thier cellular provider. Provide hotspots with Wifi Routers getting their connections from a wired source instead. Ideally, you'd run wires to your wifi access points but if you can't do that very well in some places, use wifi repeaters.

If putting wires to the places you need access points is really a serious problem that you can't solve with wifi repeaters, then use microwave. It's not too expensive to set up and it can give you a no-wires high bandwidth internet connection for long distances.

Since the wrong question was asked, it is hard to provide the right answer, but here are some tips:

• If money isn't the problem, let AT&T provide Wifi. It might even be the cheapest option since you may not have to buy the equipment. At least find out how much it will cost you. (Other service providers might work as well, I just haven't had others offer to provide proposals in the last few years.)
• If you're thinking "but LTE is good enough" then read this: http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/broadband-grudge-match-cable-vs-dsl-vs-4g/
• If you're needing to provide large crowd service, say 20,000 people plus in a small space, read this: http://www.mobileindustryreview.com/2010/08/new-series-how-to-deliver-wifi-for-10000-delegates-properly.html
• If you're questioning whether you should provide wifi, read this: http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/ANowDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=181334
• If you think you need to set up wireless access points at distances that make cabling impractical, read this: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/78459.html
• If you don't need that kind of range, and just need better wifi coverage, look into Wifi repeaters, like this one from Radioshack for $99.99: Amped Wireless® High-Power Wireless-N 600mW Smart Repeater, Model:SR10000 Catalog #: 55055046

The article makes sense, but I don't think the work appears to be especially innovative even if it could be very useful.

It is more than governments that buy supercomputers. They are also used in industry for things like oil and gas exploration, economic modeling, and weather forecasts. Universities and research organizations also use them for a variety of purposes. Time on an actual supercomputer tends to be highly valuable and sought after. You may disagree with the use, but that is a different question from not being used effectively.

The Secret Lives of Supercomputers, Part 1

"It is probably the biggest trend in supercomputers -- the movement away from ivory-tower research and government-sponsored research to commerce and business," Michael Corrado, an IBM spokesperson, told TechNewsWorld. In 1997, there were 161 supersystems deployed in business and industry, but that figure grew to 287 by June 2008, he noted. "More than half the list reside in commercial enterprises. That's a huge shift, and it's been under way for years."

Uses for supercomputers

When all your base are so easy to belong?

-- U.S. government has receives grade of "C-"
-- DHS received a "D" for 2006, an "F" in 2005
-- DoE pulled its grade up to a "C" from an "F."
-- Department of Commerce received an "F"

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56892.html

Wow, you really did your homework! Except they actually did exactly what you claim they should have done. (well, except for the MS part)

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/77152.html

The irony here is that the embedded OS used in most (still? was last I checked) cars, TRON, was the subject of an effort by the Japanese government to get it onto desktops, but the US FTC complained of it as anti-competitive:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/applications/31855.html

if you're going to peer, you need to make sure you can be trusted to not fuck up everyone elses' interconnects

I see no reason to assume that a large ISP would not screw things up. In fact, I recall this counterexample:

http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/71258.html

Obviously Microsoft didn't build their own factory from scratch (or did they?). If so, who is actually building this thing? For the original Zune it was Toshiba. I guess it isn't Asus or Acer :-)

If its not Nokia surely Elop will have to go. Seriously.

Obviously Microsoft didn't build their own factory from scratch (or did they?). If so, who is actually building this thing? For the original Zune it was Toshiba. I guess it isn't Asus or Acer :-)

I don't understand why he didn't know the answer except maybe he doesn't really know the products that he has acquired. the desktop was always free, the mobile always pay, no different than how many companies have a free consumer version and a non-free business version.

What always amazes me is how completely rampant the hypocrisy is in the tech community as the very same ones who had a living shitfit when MSFT tried to pull the exact same trick with the desktop (which was free) have NO problem when Google does it with mobile which was never free in the first place! you can't have your cake and eat it too, either any corp can do anything they want to a language no matter what the original creator thinks or one must bow to the original creator, pick already!

Because the only difference between this and what MSFT did was Google changed the name. tell me if MSFT had called theirs coffee would you have supported them? probably not, yet you do Google, why? Because Google basically snatched the Linux kernel and then hands it to companies that then lock the bootloader? Kinda sad that the FOSS advocates are so damned desperate for a win they will blindly champion a company that isn't doing them any favors and is gathering so much data on its users it makes every triple letter agency drool. Maybe one should see what RMS has to say about it? If his feelings on Google are like his feelings on Chrome again you may not be doing anybody in favors by cheering Google here.

In the meantime, remember this? Doesn't the Google Heads Up Display stuff sound an awful lot like the first step? So let them mod down all they want - I get it right more often than not, and there's only one way to salvage Canonical

0. Drop the Ubuntu brand - it's tarnished beyond repair.
1. On the support side - support ALL distros, ALL OSes. One-stop tech support for small and medium businesses and local governments. Or close it. Nothing in between will work - it's too niche.
2. On the projects side - cancel Unity, cancel UbuntuTV (it's just samygo.tv anyway), stop pretending that this "Ubuntu on Android" is anything new (and don't try to distribute the Debian hack from last summer that it's based on - it's not worth getting sued by Googlerola), cancel Ubuntu 1, cancel Ubuntu cloud.
3. As a show of good faith, immediately reinstate Kubuntu as a supported spin. Ditto for Xubuntu.
4. Cancel Bug #1 - it's childish in a world where interoperability is more important.
5. Add value by actually adding value, not surfing the net for ideas other people have developed (like UbuntuTV and Ubuntu on Android or whatever they call it) and slapping your name on it.
6. Fire all the disloyal people (the ones who were so busy being "yes-men" and "yes-women" rather than saying "hey, this is ****ed up, we need to get back to basics and stop throwing our users under the nearest bus").

Of course, the real question is, will the Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator For Life do that, or just pull the plug?

Pretty much every electronic device can interact with your video SPEKZ, which can be anything from a pair of plain-jane NokiaSofts to the latest cool shades from Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL). Cars, streetlight surveillance cams, water meters, televisions, and even your clock radio are all talking to each other -- and your SPEKZ are piggybacking on their data streams. There's not a single laptop, desktop, smartphone or tablet computer in sight.

It's an amazingly seamless experience. The tiny twin cams on your SPEKZ let you share what you see with your friends and stream a copy to your home server. Your watch and charm bracelet contain sensors to detect your wrist movements and the muscles and tendons of your fingers flexing, all descended from Nintendo WiiMote technology.

As for driving with the future versions, it will be safer, since:they will give the driver full night vision, as well as the ability to display an enhanced view of traffic despite road glare, sun in the eyes, torrential rain, etc. It would be nice to see that deer well before it goes through your windshield.

You don't even need to go down to the Firmware level to have companies claim that modifying the software on your device voids the hardware warranty.
Just install Linux on a netbook and see what happens:
http://consumerist.com/2009/12/geek-squad-wouldnt-honor-my-netbooks-protection-plan.html
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/69073.html
http://consumerist.com/2011/02/hp-pretends-linux-voids-netbook-hardware-warranty.html

Microsoft has a patent specifically on how to best sell your private data to the highest bidder. I'm trying to find it at the moment, but searching for Microsoft and patents mainly returns results on Novell, Nortel, Android, etc. And why exactly did Microsoft file this patent in conjunction of their purchase of Skype:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/72771.html

And you may want to read these:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-18/social-media/29443159_1_facebook-profiles-status-updates-advertisers
http://mashable.com/2010/05/20/facebook-caught-sending-user-data-to-advertisers/
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_sells_your_data.php
http://www.financetechnews.com/how-facebook-sells-your-personal-info-and-gets-away-with-it/

Remarkably little open source adoption, which is why I think Ubuntu is pushing so hard. Good IMHO.

Remember our infrastructure and internet culture was about 10-15 years behind the states, but that gap is closing. For a country of such size, we make 5.7% of world internet users (vs 22% EU and 23% USA).

Many companies are stuck with Microsoft systems and similarly commercial software. Working for 8+ years in software development in South Africa, I know two companies who adopted FOSS in the last 12 months.

You may even see articles like this one, with 3 family members who work for the local government, I haven't seen much of that FOSS preaching.

On the other hand, this is a great opportunity here!

Who wants to make a startup with me? ;D

Different events entirely:

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/02/insecure-routing-redirects-youtube-to-pakistan.ars

http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/71258.html

As for Samsung, well... wrong again. Seems to match Apple pretty well, undercutting them by a small amount. Not as much as they should be undercutting but undercutting all the same. Then you have Asus, Acer and more coming down the pipe shortly. The notion that iPad is the cheapest price a usable tablet can be made for is utterly absurd. It was absurd when the iPad launched and it is ridiculous now.

I swear I remember reading that IBM had already simulated an AI "Intelligence" with sophistication on par with a cat's brain, albeit not at full speed.

Yep, here it is (one of many articles on the subject I picked at random)
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/68678.html

I agree. It's close minded to simply turn a job down because you feel uneasy about it. IMO in this economy, I would have taken the job, simply because it's hard to find work. A certain level of Outsourcing is healthy for our economy, especially during the state that our economy is in. If companies are able to save money on services like support, that's excellent, because it will ultimately create MORE jobs in future because... "Aside from the obvious benefit of helping pull poor countries out of the economic basement, it's also the case that by stimulating economic growth overseas, the U.S. is creating new markets in which to sell its products." "The GAO report notes that "private researchers predict that offshoring [outsourcing offshore] may eliminate 100,000 to 500,000 IT jobs within the next few years while others note that offshoring can also generate benefits such as lower prices, productivity improvements and overall economic growth." http://www.technewsworld.com/story/36877.html?wlc=1297003256 So we are able to lower costs of doing business by reducing support costs, and will then allow us to sell and provide higher end services across to new markets. If we are selling more services and products worldwide then it will create more jobs for Americans. Perhaps, by setting up this help desk you would be creating a better, higher paying future job for an unemployed American.

Hahaha, really? You don't think there are other sources out there saying the same thing? Here:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Critics-Slam-Fox-News-for-Distorting-Global-Warming-Debate-71473.html

Yes, I'm sure "Tech News World" are all a bunch of socialists...

...Well, that Apple now has a [new] problem to deal with when it comes to the iPhone 4. Call it Glassgate. I am just glad that the iPhone herd mentality has not yet had any effect on me. Wait a sec...where is my Droid?

Oh, I'd say it's working out quit well for at least one company.

Finally I feel like a proper pirate, http://www.technewsworld.com/story/47895.html?wlc=1271864089 , collecting a valuable (?), (not any more) hoard of musical loot on the high seas in cool boots.

Historically, Microsoft licensed the Unix code from AT&T in 1980 to make its own version of Unix: Xenix. At the time, the plan was that Xenix would be Microsoft’s 16-bit operating system. Microsoft quickly found they couldn’t do it on their own, and so started work with what was then a small Unix porting company, SCO. By 1983, SCO XENIX System V had arrived for 8086 and 8088 chips and both companies were marketing it.
It didn’t take long though for Microsoft to decide that Xenix wasn’t for them. In 1984, the combination of AT&T licensing fees and the rise of MS-DOS, made Microsoft decide to start moving out of the Unix business.

So why did MS suddenly decide they needed to buy $ 10M worth of old Unix licenses in 2003?
BTW, Novell claims they're entitled to 95% of those licenses SCO sold, in their 2005: breach of contract counterclaim. We'll soon see how this all plays out because the SCO-Novell case is finally in court now (the part that's still going on, whether Novell has or hasn't sold the Unix copyrights to SCO, is moving forward because SCO is sueing Novell with Novell's own money :-) ). If it turns out Novell owns the copyrights, all other SCO court cases should quickly collapse, which *might* in turn get people to understand that this whole SCOsource anti-Linux FUD was in fact a scam to scare potential customers away--but I digress.. sorry..
2004: Baystar connection (warning: by Enderle), and here in 2006 new info
I quote:

Buried in IBM's recent motion for summary judgment against SCO is a Declaration from BayStar general partner Larry Goldfarb. Near the beginning of the long-running legal soap opera, BayStar invested $50 million in SCO. In exchange for their investment, BayStar received 20,000 shares of preferred stock in SCO.
In his declaration, Goldfarb testifies that former Microsoft senior VP for corporate development and strategy Richard Emerson discussed "a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would 'backstop,' or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment." Goldfarb then said that after BayStar committed the $50 million to SCO's cause, Microsoft "stopped returning my phone calls and e-mails, and to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Emerson was fired from Microsoft."

I wonder if this is related to Verizon's announcement that they will soon be releasing phones running Android?

And last but not least, exploiting the human factor in a way or another dont require a lot of technology, just hit in the right spot (like the very successful nigerian scam of some years ago).

Without speed, all the other features fall by the wayside. You can't enjoy a WebSlice (which is a slice of a Webpage that is constantly updated) if it takes forever to load. And if you look at Internet Explorer's market share, it has steadily been eroded over the past few years by its faster rivals Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera.

...If you've already left IE for a speedier browser, IE8 is not going to bring you back, and Microsoft knows it.

...IE may still hold 67 percent of the browser market, according to Net Apps, but that share is declining. Firefox claims 22 percent, Safari has 8 percent, and Chrome has captured 1 percent. And speed is not their only advantage. Many of the new features in IE8 are simply catch-up features. The rest are not enough to make most switchers switch back.

New IE8 still the slowest browser
Microsoft's final code comes in dead last in JavaScript benchmark tests

Microsoft Corp. may be talking up the performance boost it gave to its just-launched Internet Explorer 8, but the new browser remains the slowest of the top five on the market, benchmark tests show.

Firefox proved to be 59% faster than IE8, while Safari was 47% faster. Opera, the slowest non-Microsoft production browser, was still 38% faster than IE8.

But the real reason most people are leaving IE is not speed:

• Microsoft Debuts IE8, Only to Have It Hacked
• Researcher hacks just-launched IE8

Well, I was wondering if what you were saying was true, and so, lacking any other way of determining which games are most played, I decided to have a look at Steam Stats and guess what? Most players on that list are playing games that would work on a GMA 950. Heck even WoW works on it! Compare Fallout 3 to Counterstrike Source, and we'll see who's segregated themselves from the norm.

I really don't understand your obstinate opposition to an Intel integrated graphics card. Everything that I've said is easily corroborated by other sources.

PS: Just so you know, some sources say that 75% of all laptops have integrated graphics.

Console games "just work" the same way an apple does.

Games get broken all the time, have glitches, errors, etc. The only difference is XBOX360/PS3/wii are slightly less locked than their previous versions so you can fix some of that via software updates.

Examples of console fiascos:

physical (xbox red ring crap)
software: PS3 update problems : http://www.technewsworld.com/story/63690.html?wlc=1228202794

Remember, "just works" also means "you can't fix the problem/nobody outside of the manufacturer can", as well.

The Bloomberg/Google slipup a while back also caused large-scale losses, in that instance to United Airlines.

Good catch. While the market rebounded on United when the error was noted and disseminated, IIRC correctly United's capitalization dipped $1.1 billion and rebounded $800 million. This does illustrate the delicate nature of wealth which exists by virtue of perception - $300 million can disappear pretty quick. But I'm not sure that there is any other kind of wealth ... ?

While I agree with the substance of you comment - Investments need to be chosen based on real data - I think the idea of what is real data is probably changing and up for grabs somewhat.

Note that there was human intervention in the Bloomberg/United fiasco - my understanding is that it was pulled from Google and placed in Bloomberg's service, but I don't have a citation for that. The lack of a date on the original post didn't help either.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/64440.html

You should check out the number of porn website's on Alexa's top 100 sites for the US. Also compare things like isohunt's zeitgeist. Ninety percent is an extremely high estimate, but the question really depends on what you are measuring. Do you mean the percentage of network traffic, the percent of web pages, or perhaps the percent of publicly accessible storage?

This article (2004) is talking about the percentage of web traffic (as distinct from internet traffic) that is porn-related as being about 20%

This question also showed up on Ask Slashdot

Basically, no one really knows; the question is extremely difficult to answer. I personally would believe 10-30% of network traffic to be porn related, on the basis of a wild guess and a gut feeling.

Google actually had a problem when they went on a military installation and took photographs.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/62017.html

I'm sensing a real skeptic amongst us.

This reminds me of the following:

"No one has proven that bath houses spread HIV." --Andy Humm

I remember a relatively recent story of a business man who registered an AOL account in his sons name to look at illicit pr0n. They went to the sons house first before they realized who they were really looking for. But who wants that kind of scrutiny? I can't remember all the details, but I don't really have to.

It seems reasonably clear that when people are going to commit crimes they typically try to do so in such a way that reduces the possibility of them getting caught.

The burden of proof goes to those who make extraordinary claims and the notion that people exploit other peoples' identities or computers (heard of botnets?), to commit crimes is not extraordinary. It's been human nature probably forever, and it's been long studied by criminologist before the internet.

We don't need a panel of scientists to tell us unsafe sex spreads HIV, in bath houses too; or that people conceal their identity behind the identity of others when committing crimes, on the internet too.

But it obviously opens one up to a witch-hunt type of scrutiny that's hard to defend against and potentially could land one in jail.

1. Have the "Internet Police" contact the Web Admin of the "offending" site to clean up their own server.
2. If they don't clean it up after a certain time, stop performing the DNS.

1. Have the "Internet Police" contact the Web Admin of the "offending" site to clean up their own server.
2. If they don't clean it up after a certain time, stop performing the DNS.

Wow, I thought it was interesting the first time I saw you say it -- but a quick Google turns it up again.

Really, a copy/paste troll on threading? WTF?

And yes, I'm calling it a troll unless you stop quoting that "150 years after Charles Babbage" BS, and start making your point within the comment, instead of in a rambling five-page blog post which links to a rambling whitepaper, at the end of which, we finally get a vague idea of what you might be talking about -- and we find that it's not really relevant to the real world unless we adopt a whole new (as-yet uninvented) hardware architecture.

Maybe. I think. That was a LOT of skimming.

Come on you guys, even the US porn industry was opposed to .xxx on grounds that it would be easier to filter.

There were 15,000 beta testers for SP1.

The release candidate became available to anyone in mid-January. Microsoft Opens Vista SP1 Beta to All Testers

If you haven't been working with the beta, tell me why it doesn't make sense to wait a week or two until driver problems are resolved in the RTM?

what is "bullshit" = A/C

even a cursory search will turn up documents that confirm: 90% of email on the net is spam

you make a lot of postings out here buddy and I ain't exactly sure how many you are or what your agenda is

but after a note like the one I'm responding to I have confirmed for myself pretty much what you are.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/51055.html

http://handsoff.org/blog/category/spam/

http://www.postini.com/news_events/pr/pr110606.php

I do hope McAfee's products are more up-to-date than their CEO's quote on cybercrime now exceeding the value of the US illegal drug trade. According to Reuters, that quote dates back to the fall of 2005 and refers to data for 2004. This statement was published in TechNewsWorld in November 2005: "Last year was the first year that proceeds from cyber crime were greater than proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs, and that was, I believe, over US$105 billion," Valerie McNiven, who advises the U.S. Treasury on cybercrime, told Reuters recently. http://www.technewsworld.com/story/47559.html.

Ok, so they are talking about the "Sponsered Links" section. Well, it's in a beige background, different from the rest of the results. It does say "sponsered links", but granted, that is off to the right of the results.

Both above and beside. And the phrase "sponsored links" is in a small, light, unobtrusive font with the phrase itself being somewhat ambiguous. "Advertising links" and using the same font would've been less ambiguous. And they're using the same font for paid links that they using for the unpaid links. Funny that.

The reality is that for the average google user the things that google have done to distinguish paid advertising is not adequate. Surveys have been done (e.g. only 38% can tell) and the majority of users don't know the difference. That's fraudulent advertising and the ACCC is right to prosecute. The FTC's take on it is interesting.

We, as expert users, know the difference but if the average user doesn't then it needs to be fixed, both by educating users and by forcing Google and other search companies not to engage in deceptive business practices.

Fraud is profitable and advertisers are frequently trying to fraudulently mislead consumers. It's up to government and the law to stop as much of it as they can.

---

"Advertising supported" just means you're paying twice over, once in time to watch/avoid the ad and twice in the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.

Enemies of the US are for instance:
NATO Allies:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4 456801,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire
Industrial competitors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enercon
and Linux using flag burning commies that are trampling on the constitution of course...
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/31975.html

Most of the ones I use have already been mentioned. One that hasn't is http://www.technewsworld.com/

Voters let Christian Right move against evolution because they didn't know what they stood for. The same voters threw the creationists out in the next election.