Slashdot Mirror


The SEC and Fake Investment Sites

An anonymous reader sent in: "Our web-based challenge for the day: find the SEC's fake investment sites! The SEC claims to have seeded the web with fake investment sites in order to teach naive web users and investors about the dangers of believing all you read and investing without research. These sites have telltale signs of online investment fraud, and if people manage to overlook or ignore those issues and attempt to invest money, informs them that they have made an unwise decision. The SEC says that these sites are intended to encourage wise investing decisions, or in more casual terms, to attempt to slap fools upside the head with a cluestick before they lose their money in a real scam. It's an interesting use of the web by a government-related agency."

453 comments

  1. Exactly how important or difficult is it to fake? by bliss · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And could someone please tell me why it's important for a computer geek (who most likely) dosn't really care about financial matters?

    --
    The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic --Joseph Stalin
  2. Notice the Dearth of Posts Today? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Taco has shit in his oatmeal one too many times. Now he's pissed off a large portion of his readership and no one is posting anymore.

    Way to go, Taco! I give Slashdot 4 months at best before VA dumps it or you totally rearrange the attitudes and moderation system here.

    -txr

  3. unless by WhiteKnight07 · · Score: 1

    of course some bozo actually tries to invest using information from said web sites

    --


    We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
    1. Re:unless by CMiYC · · Score: 2

      You can't. Take a look at the example. There information about investing all the up to the point where you send them money. That's where you get slapped in the face.

  4. survival of the fitest? by ubugly2 · · Score: 0

    stacking the deck against darwin

  5. Rock on SEC!!! by Em+Emalb · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sweet.

    What a cool way to teach the less-informed among us not to trust everything just because it's on the web. Now, if we could get websites out there that ask for personal info to do the same, ie:

    Enter your credit card info here:

    XXXXXX-XXXXX-XXXXXX

    No Idiot, this site is about my dog skippy, there is no need for you to hand this over. Now get off the web and find a clue. (Hint: your 10 year old child is more web-savvy than you)

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:Rock on SEC!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: your 10 year old child is more web-savvy than you

      My guess is when 10 year olds are using credit cards for things on the web, the credit cards don't belong to them and thus don't ever have to worry about the consequences.

    2. Re:Rock on SEC!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, what a waste of tax-payer money. a fool and his money are soon parted ... as they should be.

    3. Re:Rock on SEC!!! by Arawn · · Score: 1

      Hmm, check out http://www.brunching.com/toys/mrtname.html

    4. Re:Rock on SEC!!! by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      It didn't work--I entered everything twice to make sure it wasn't my error. Crappy site you refer us to!

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    5. Re:Rock on SEC!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh plz! You dont think this is fake?? look at the image. Underpaid, gov M$ paint artists.

  6. Don't believe what you read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any investment site that isn't Raging Bull, The Street.com, or the Motley Fool should be ignored completely. Of course there was that Tokyo Joe site that was really good, but it got taken down when Tokyo Joe was arrested for SEC violations.

  7. Money by rootmonkey · · Score: 1

    In order to impress a more lasting lesson on the unknowing investor does the SEC keep their money?

    --

    Yes but every time I try to see it your way, I get a headache.
    1. Re:Money by HerringFlavoredFowl · · Score: 3, Funny

      I smell cover-up, we are running a deficit, the SEC is putting up fraudulent web sites. I suspect they will take the users money and balance the budget.

      TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken

      --
      TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
  8. I'm like the bird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  9. Here's one! by daeley · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    1. Re:Here's one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.globalcrossing.com/xml/investors/index. xml
      http://www.shareholder.com/itwo/index.cfm

    2. Re:Here's one! by WillSeattle · · Score: 5, Funny

      http://www.enron.com/corp/

      Nah, that's the one the White House put up.

      We're looking for the SEC ones.

      --
      --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
    3. Re:Here's one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahaha.... Oh man, that's just wrong.

    4. Re:Here's one! by chachi5000 · · Score: 1

      Gawd, you made me shoot water outta my nose. Thanks.

    5. Re:Here's one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha I KNOW i got modded down for not ever being modded down. stupid bitches, mod this one down too you stupid fucks. as much as i add interesting commentary and have never trolled and the 1 time i call a moderation into question i get modded as a troll, haha laughable (that's okay, one day i'll have mod points too, that is the point isn't it to use you mod points to exact revenge?)

    6. Re:Here's one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Funny

    7. Re:Here's one! by Azog · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the first thing that came to my mind was:

      Finally! A real explanation for ZeoSync!

      (For those who haven't been keeping up, ZeoSync is the company that claims to have broken / bypassed Shannon's laws of information entropy to create some sort of encoding or compression that can compress random data. Except that they don't call it compression - they call it "Information Crystals" or something equally stupid.)

      I asked for and got ZeoSync's Investors Package, and it truly has some strange stuff in it... they are suing some previous employees, have some financial stuff that looks weird even to me (I know very little about corporate finance), and those computer scientists that are so prominently featured on their web site are not actually associated with the company - ZeoSync just paid them (an unspecified amount) for some sort of unspecified consulting. Basically meaningless.

      They admit in the fine print that the alleged "technology" has never been demoed to anyone outside the company...

      Really, I would not be surprised if ZeoSync was an elaborate ruse to teach gullible investors a lesson.

      --
      Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
      "HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
    8. Re:Here's one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You idiot. The thing that you are overlooking is that if the White House were involved in any under-the-table dealings, Enron wouldn't have gone under. Then you would have had a scandal to talk about.

      As it is, Kenneth "Corrupt as the Come" Lay asked for some bail-out but got the cold shoulder. No scandal there.

    9. Re:Here's one! by Danse · · Score: 2

      Enron was too far gone for them to do much of anything. Except possibly keep quiet about the whole thing while the execs bailed out and the employees got shafted.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    10. Re:Here's one! by hansk · · Score: 1

      Information for Former Enron Employees
      Downtown Club Membership Offer

      You have to love Enron's making sure its former employees stay healthy:

      Health Club Membership

      Maybe they are getting a kick back from the club if they get people to sign up? :')

    11. Re:Here's one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You idiot. The thing that you are overlooking is that if the White House were involved in any under-the-table dealings, Enron wouldn't have gone under.

      Of course not. How can you flood several billions in a company from gov, without that being seen in the financial report? If you do badly enough, no gov. help can save you, except if the state buys you, with US gov. generally never does (but Japan, for instance, does sometimes).

    12. Re:Here's one! by FlatEarther · · Score: 1
      ZeoSync are a perfectly genuine company albeit using some rather outdated technology. We at NeoSyck have moved on from using BinaryAccelerator technology to TernaryAccelerator&#153 neotechnology resulting in an improved 1000 to 1 compression ratio. Then by dint of multiple self catenation (similar to recursion as computer scientists would know it) we are able to arbitrarily compress any random data by any desired amount.

      How can this be possible? Well rather than using the Pigeonhole principle as do ZeoSync we base our technological process on the Eagle-blackhole principle. In layman's terms if 100 eagles fly into a black hole how many unique markers are required to label each one ? Well after short reflection any scientist realises that no markers are required as the eagles have been compressed out of existence.

      Here lies the basis of our algorithms - we can compress any information infinitely. Now I hear you ask (as you are probably a somewhat sceptical /.er), how can we recover the original information ? Again, a moments scientific reflection provides the simple answer. As any layman knows all 100 eagles would simply reappear at an associated white hole, completely unscathed by their experience ! Thus using our patented Lightwave Technology&#153 we are able to compress and decompress at will

      Ah, but you are still sceptical... No problem ! I've provided a complete scientifically rigorous proof of our process together with all our source code and binaries for all known operating systems. Simply decompress this " 1 " data.

      The Earth is truly flat - it's only space that's curved.

    13. Re:Here's one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of ZeoSync "management team" is a known felon who was involved in the Centennial stock fraud a few years back. Investors lost about 200 million in that one. He "earned" several million.

  10. What ever happened to... by ArcadeNut · · Score: 1

    "A fool and his money are soon departed"?

    I really wish the government would stop trying to "Protect" us in this manner. If you're stupid enough to trust a web site (or any publication for that matter) without doing your own research, then you deserve what you get.

    --
    Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
    1. Re:What ever happened to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A fool and his money are soon departed"?

      I really wish the government would stop trying to "Protect" us in this manner. If you're stupid enough to trust a web site (or any publication for that matter) without doing your own research, then you deserve what you get.


      I really wish the government would stop putting thieves and pickpockets behind bars. If you're stupid enough to let someone steal your wallet you deserve what you get.

    2. Re:What ever happened to... by Sarcazmo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It costs, what, maybe $30000 a year for them to run these fake sites? Less? I know I could do something like them in my spare time, I doubt they hired anyone specifically for this, so lets say it costs them $5000 a year, still a high estimate. If just a few people are LARTed by these sites, I think it's worth it. I'm a Libertarian, so I am against all the things the Gov does to try to "protect us from ourselves" too, but this is a cheap and clever way to educate people, and it probably costs less than the production of a single PSA for TV.

    3. Re:What ever happened to... by NGTV13 · · Score: 0

      Good point. These people, generally web literate (but not web savvy) corporate types will go online, spend thousands and thousands of dollars on online trading and the such. When, and i know this from personal experience, they have no idea what they're getting into. They need to do their research, or else they're gonna get scammed, much like they are rigth now

      --
      I'm not saying that god doesn't exist, merely that he is not necessary - hawking
    4. Re:What ever happened to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A fool and his money are soon departed"?

      Uh, maybe you mean "A fool and his money are soon parted ?

    5. Re:What ever happened to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For a change, this seems like an attempt to
      passively *educate* the public, rather that
      legislate our free will out of existence. I
      would *FAR* rather have the US government
      waste our tax dollars on this than on passing
      horrendously complex laws that impose massive
      fines and prison terms for anyone making
      finanial claims not officially endorsed by
      the SEC... Consider that, as someone already
      pointed out, the SEC considered ENRON a "real" company...

    6. Re:What ever happened to... by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1


      Same goes for auto safety, if you are dumb enough to get yourself killed in a car accident you deserve to be maimed or killed.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    7. Re:What ever happened to... by kawaichan · · Score: 2

      One of the biggest problem with investing theses days is the fact that everyone are doing it. That's right, everyone, like your everyday AOLer and MSNer.

      And if you haven't figure out already, there are tons of AOLers out there, those who lack IQ and are willing to believe whatever someone says even though it sounds too good to be true.

      Then you ask, dude, these scams are so old, you would be suprised people will fall on anything.

      Believe it or not, the economy depends on these AOLers, and it is the government's interest to protect and educate those who lack intelligance.

      --

      kawai
    8. Re:What ever happened to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This analogy doesn't even make sense. In a car, you are prone to outside forces that you have not control over. There are people out there who will always spend their money foolishly no matter how hard you try to protect them. This is just one thing that liberals do not understand...

    9. Re:What ever happened to... by interiot · · Score: 2

      I personally much prefer government-sponsored education to government-mandated restrictions.

    10. Re:What ever happened to... by Flower · · Score: 2
      I really wish the government would do more of these things and educate people rather than have them screw up so badly that I'll be buying them goverment cheese for the next 30+ years.

      We end up paying more for the people who got scammed then we pay for hosting an investment honeypot or hundred.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    11. Re:What ever happened to... by tonedevil · · Score: 0

      Thanks AC.... for the gratuitous slap at LIBERALS, they are after all the sole source of evil in the world and incapable of rational thought

    12. Re:What ever happened to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks TD. Clever. And you're right, everything they touch fails miserably and costs lots of money.

    13. Re:What ever happened to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember this is the US Government were talking about...they payed $20000 for a toilet seat..so this scam..er ah..informative web site must have cost at least a few million.

    14. Re:What ever happened to... by ClipDude · · Score: 1

      I think it's a little deeper than that. If you are lied to by someone trying to take your money, then even under the most libertarian ideology (to which I don't subscribe), the government would be justified in prosecuting the fraud. I view this as a preventive measure--spend some money now to educate investors, and maybe in the long run, you won't have to prosecute as many scammers.

      Just one prosecution probably costs more than this five-page web site.

      --

      The DMCA--for corporations, the best copyright law money can buy.
  11. Sorta like the tarbaby system for net security by drenehtsral · · Score: 1

    This is a good idea =:-) It's sort of like putting a deliberately weak system on your network to see when somebody is attacking you and trap them, but it works in reverse. I think it's probably great in terms of the number of people it'll educate per tax dollar spent.

    --

    ---
    Play Six Pack Man. I
  12. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by scott1853 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't care about financial matters? Are you still living with your parents? Computer geeks don't care about things like 401k or the stock market. We all just keep our cash under our matress.

  13. Whois tells all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SEC (MCWHORTLE-DOM)
    6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
    ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
    US

    Domain Name: MCWHORTLE.COM

    Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
    SEC (VMGSFHPWCO) webmaster@mcwhortle.com
    SEC
    6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
    ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
    US
    202 824 5151 fax: 202 504 2477
    Technical Contact:
    VeriSign, Inc. (HOST-ORG) namehost@WORLDNIC.NET
    VeriSign, Inc.
    21355 Ridgetop Circle
    Dulles, VA 20166
    US
    1-888-642-9675 fax:

    Record last updated on 09-Jan-2002.
    Record expires on 08-Jan-2003.
    Record created on 08-Jan-2002.
    Database last updated on 30-Jan-2002 01:35:00 EST.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    CBRU.BR.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 199.191.128.105
    CMTU.MT.NS.ELS-GMS.ATT.NET 12.127.16.69

  14. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny you should mention Raging Bull. That's where the company I used to work for perpetrated their pump-n-dump scam.

    1. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sshhh... That's where we're doing ours now!

    2. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fellow ex-CMGIer!

  15. whois mcwhortle.com by molo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shouldn't be too hard to find.


    Registrant:
    SEC (MCWHORTLE-DOM)
    6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
    ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
    US

    Domain Name: MCWHORTLE.COM

    Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
    SEC (VMGSFHPWCO) webmaster@mcwhortle.com
    SEC
    6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
    ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
    US
    202 824 5151 fax: 202 504 2477

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    1. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, good... Now I have a way of checking on a site before forwarding the investment come-on spam to enforcement@sec.gov, and save myself the time and the bandwidth.

      But how do we know that the whois data hasn't been faked and that the site really belongs to Bernie Shifman or some similar slimy spamster?

    2. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by ftobin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On their About page, they have an image of their building. The sign on the building is a sorry attempt at making it look seamless.

      I wonder which building is pictured, anyways. Maybe all the SEC's 'scam sites' use the same buildling.

      Doing a Google search for 'mcwhorgle', one finds out that the SEC even got Yahoo to have a length article on the SEC pre-approving its IPO. Interesting that they put that much work into it.

    3. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And hosted on their networks, no less:
      http://www.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput= 12 .40.163.190

    4. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by CMiYC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well yeah for you, me, and most of the slashdot population. We know what whois is... in fact, if anyone is like me, they do a whois whenever something seem fishy about a website. However, what about some joe-shmo looking for someplace to put his money? He's still trying to figure out why he can't get the stock symbol for the internet company.

    5. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by chachi5000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      there is a video feed of the McWhortle CEO on the Yahoo - http://www.videonewswire.com/event.asp?id=2952

    6. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by ajs · · Score: 3, Informative

      You've got to understand, this isn't "Yahoo". You're just looking at PR Newswire, which is a dumping ground for anyone to send in advertisements (er, "press-releases") for a fee.

      This is one of the many tactics that I would *expect* of a competent scammer.

    7. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by GuyZero · · Score: 1
      And they drop the other shoe at http://www.mcwhortle.com/financials.htm

      They describe how it's an example of how this could have been a big scam.

    8. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      >I wonder which building is pictured, anyways

      I think it's an attempt at subtle humor. Remember when the Microsoft licensing contractor in Reno received a letter from overseas that tested positive for anthrax? I could swear the McWhortle building is either that Microsoft contractor's building, or the American Media building. It's definitely been in the news because I recognize the picture. That the "company's" headquarters is a building that was caught up in the anthrax scare strikes me as one of those red flags the SEC is trying to raise.

      I dug around on both CNN and MSNBC and - oddly enough - the photos of the buildings have disappeared from most of the AMI articles and all of the Microsoft articles. (Even more interesting, an MSNBC search for "Microsoft Reno Anthrax" yields no appropriate results...)

      If anyone has shots of the buildings I mentioned, I'd be interested in knowing whether or not McWhortle's is a match.

      Shaun

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    9. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by bughunter · · Score: 2
      Well, I wouldn't have found it if you hadn't pointed out the domain, but their product info is a dead giveaway:

      • Now, for the first time, McWhortle Enterprises is offering a product to the general public: the new Bio-Hazard Alert Detector. Running quietly on two double-A batteries, the Bio-Hazard Alert Detector emits an audible beep and flashes when in the presence of all known bio-hazards. The Bio-Hazard Alert Detector, measuring only 3 by 7 inches, is small enough to slip into a man's jacket pocket, a woman's purse or a child's backpack.
      Utter bogosity. My employer has been working with ORNL for a decade on bringing portable chem and bio agent detectors to market, and even after a decade, they're barely small enough to fit in a trunk. And they require a lot of power... two 12V car batteries. Not to mention that no single sensor technology is suitable for detecting all agents...

      Also, this should set off anyone's alarms:

      • It can detect even the finest-milled, weapons-grade biohazards from 50 feet, long before the risk of inhalation or cutaneous infection, by testing for the distinctive surface leptins. Proven effective to just .02 microns per cubic meter of air,
      First of all, the implied sensitivity requires an in situ device, making detection from 50 feet impossible. But the real zit on this thing's nose is the laughable misuse of units... microns per unit volume? That reduces to nothing per unit area -- pure nonsense. I've seen better technobabble on episodes of ST:TNG.

      But it may be fun to float the URL around the company here and see who spots the fnord first!

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    10. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My employer has been working with ORNL for a decade on bringing portable chem and bio agent detectors to market

      Sounds like your employer is, unlike the SEC sites, a real scam. Why not post your URL so the lemmings can invest?

      .

    11. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by bughunter · · Score: 1
      Oh yea. A perfect scam. Even better than Enron:

      Hamilton Sundstrand, a United Technologies company.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    12. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      I submitted this site to slashdot, complete with the bait "too bad the thing runs Windows CE". Unfortunately, it got through the wonderful fact checking of the slashdot crew.

    13. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by dgoodman · · Score: 2

      After Google performs its next crawl, we only have to search for text from this page, and voila!

    14. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by jea6 · · Score: 2

      Mod this up! The audio feed is VERY funny. What idiots fall for this? "Our clients have been giving them to their children." Oh, the title of the window reads, 'SEC Presentation'. Mistake?

      --

      sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
    15. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by ftobin · · Score: 2

      Has anyone called the phone number listed in the newswire? The contact information is:

      Kelly Green
      Investor Relations Manager
      McWhortle Enterprises, Inc.
      (202) 824-5151

      Google didn't provide any relevant hits for the phone number.

    16. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for fun.. I dialed it up.. went straight to voice mail (as expected).. couldn't dig around too much inside their vm system. (as expected)

    17. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about for people who don'ot have a terminal with whois access?

      our corp won't allow whois on outside domains

    18. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by jesser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I find it disturbing that Yahoo includes these press releases in its biz.yahoo.com site. Until now, I assumed that if Yahoo was a reliable news source. I'm aware that press releases usually have heavy bias, but I would expect Yahoo to verify that the company exists and that claims of facts such as "SEC 'Pre-Approves' IPO" were actually true.

      If Yahoo wants to protect its reputation while running unverified press releases, it should put text near the top of each PRNewswire article saying "PRNewswire does not run background checks on companies, nor does it check claims of facts for validity."

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    19. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by ahde · · Score: 2

      yeah, they should make a law about it

    20. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      "I've seen better technobabble on episodes of ST:TNG."

      That's because ST is for geeks. Technical scams are for non-technical chumps.

      -Paul Komarek

    21. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by nzhavok · · Score: 2

      I'm wondering what the SEC is going to think when their mcwhorlte.com website experiences the slashdot effect?

      They will probably be able to claim that tens of thousands of unsuspecting netziens were educated in a matter of hours :-)

      --

      He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    22. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by CatPieMan · · Score: 1

      Also, if you check netcraft, it will tell you who owns the netblock, the fact that the ip is owned by the US Securities & Exchange Commission is kind of a dead giveaway.

      --
      ---You're all I need, When the water runs deep, You're all I need, Now I cry my soul to sleep -- Collective Soul, Needs
    23. Re:whois mcwhortle.com by uglyduckling · · Score: 1

      Then www.whois.net is your friend!

  16. Does a fake investment site mean by jjeffries · · Score: 2

    that I can invest some Monopoly &reg money?

    1. Re:Does a fake investment site mean by javacowboy · · Score: 1

      I thought that URL was owned by Microsoft! :O

      --
      This space left intentionally blank.
    2. Re:Does a fake investment site mean by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      I should send em my Bunny Munny, from Easter 3 years ago.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  17. Before you invest ... by ip_vjl · · Score: 1

    ... make sure to do your whois.

    Registrant:
    SEC (MCWHORTLE-DOM)
    6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
    ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
    US

    Domain Name: MCWHORTLE.COM

    Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
    SEC (VMGSFHPWCO) webmaster@mcwhortle.com
    SEC
    6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
    ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
    US
    202 824 5151 fax: 202 504 2477

    [snip]

  18. First Clue by chukm · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can picture the site now: Todays' hot stock pick- Buy 1 get one free for ENRON shares.

  19. One one hand... by ZuG · · Score: 3, Insightful
    On one hand, it's kind of nice that the SEC is taking steps to protect people from these kind of scams. It's never pretty when people get ripped off by companies that fabricate stories to potential investors enron .

    On the other hand, though, it's kind of sad that there are people who actually invest in this kind of stuff. One would think that people would be (more) careful when there is real money involved. There are plenty of brokers out there, and while they may not give the *best* advice, they certainly wouldn't direct innocent people toward investments that are ovbiously scams. If you don't know what you're doing with your money, then take it to someone who does. If you don't, you're just asking for trouble.

    On some level, people affected by these scams get what they have coming to them.

  20. Ya know by wiredog · · Score: 5, Funny
    Slashdotting the SEC's just gotta violate some law...

    SEC Computers Catch Fire After During Hacker Attack

    By Joe Snuffy

    Associated Press Writer

    Wednesday, January 30, 2002; 2:45 P.M.

    The SEC headquarters was evacuated today after a form of the denial of service hacking attack, commonly known as "slashdotting" caused their servers to halt and catch fire. The FBI refuses to confirm that it may be seeking one Rob "Commander Taco" Malda for questioning in this terrorist attack on America's financial structure.

    1. Re:Ya know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not funny. He's just a jack ass. There is no link to the SEC site. The link that is there is to CNN which typically doesn't get slashdotted (except possibly 9/11) and to the fake site which hasn't slashdotted either.

      He is just making the same lame ass jokes that are making every 3rd post on this shithole site.

    2. Re:Ya know by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 1

      Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda of Slashdot fame was released today after questioning for supposedly conspiring to set fire to the SEC web servers. Apparently, CmdrTaco != Commander Taco.

    3. Re:Ya know by in8 · · Score: 1
      wiredog submits:


      Slashdotting the SEC's just gotta violate some law...

      SEC Computers Catch Fire After During Hacker Attack

      By Joe Snuffy
      Associated Press Writer
      Wednesday, January 30, 2002; 2:45 P.M.


      The SEC headquarters was evacuated today after a form of the denial of service hacking attack, commonly known as "slashdotting" caused their servers to halt and catch fire. The FBI refuses to confirm that it may be seeking one Rob "Commander Taco" Malda for questioning in this terrorist attack on America's financial structure.



      News Flash - breaking newz

      Hacker "Commander Taco" (Hacker alias Cmdr Taco)
      was reported to be surveying new possible hacks
      in the NEW YORK area, site
      of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Authorities have
      focused in on a Hacker convention currently
      going on there.


      In further news: Microsoft announces its
      new "TrustUs" (tm) security computer initiative,
      and demands that the government stop such
      hacker terrorists attacks which have disabled
      SEC systems, by approving proposed legislation
      to require ALL computers* to be "Trust Us"
      certified. Bill Gates reported stated:
      "Innovation is key, if it wasn't for this
      silly Justice Department oppresion against
      Microsoft, we would have innovative security
      legislation enabling homeland cyber security
      thru the 'trust us'(tm) initiative."

      (* including computing devices,
      such as the new 'embeddedXP everywhere' toasters)

  21. My new scam by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 2, Funny

    Design a website with "telltale signs of online investment fraud" and watch how many idiots still try to invest thru it. Then have a warning about how they could have been scammed, but they are lucky Big Brother was looking out for them, and it's not real. Then use the info they gave you to drain their bank accounts, and send an email to them, From: SEC, saying so long, and thanks for all the fish.

    If they even comprehend what happened, they will blame the government, since we all know it's full of crooks anyway.

    1. Re:My new scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahahaha! Nice. If I had points, and wasn't an anoymous pussy, I'd mod you up.

    2. Re:My new scam by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      Well, it's the thought that counts. Thanks.

      I just wonder how many people have read it and thought I was serious.

    3. Re:My new scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if you're not gonna do it, mind if I use your idea?

    4. Re:My new scam by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I just recieved my patent for the procedure: How to alleviate the feeling of worthiness in persons who have managed to control their spending, by the application of social engineering upon their gullibility quotient.

      But if you want, I can license it to you for 25% of your net income from such an endeavor.

  22. Um, FTC doing EXACTLY this since 1990's... by backtick · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.gppf.org/events/oswindle.htm Shows the FTC doing the exact same thing and discussing it in the 1990's. Sheesh, stuff from 3-5 years ago isn't exactly new :-)

    1. Re:Um, FTC doing EXACTLY this since 1990's... by jesser · · Score: 1

      The Commission has now posted nine teaser sites on pyramid schemes, Internet business opportunities, scholarship scams, deceptive vacation advertisements, deceptive travel agent opportunities, false weight loss claims, fraudulent vending opportunities and credit repair schemes.

      Does that mean some of my spam comes from the FTC and the SEC?

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
  23. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's showing that the government is begging to use the web in creative ways that dont harm users. I think it's a very good idea.

  24. Probables... by oldmildog · · Score: 1
    Some possibilities... from Network Solutions, searched for SEC as the registrant. No time to check them out tho.

    • windhandel.com
    • douzals.com
    • mcwhortle.com (from the article)
    • thaihoroscope.com
    • thailands.com
    --
    They have the Internet on computers now?
    1. Re:Probables... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong SEC???
      From the web site: http://www.douzals.com

      La Société Informatique SEC [Service Enseignement Conception]

    2. Re:Probables... by morcego · · Score: 1

      And no, none of these (except mcwhortle.com) are the ones we are looking for.

      --
      morcego
    3. Re:Probables... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      windhandle looks like an early test site, or one which isn't "active" yet - definitely registered by the SEC, definitly a "trading" site, but only one page, and the registration in much older than the one for McWhortle.

    4. Re:Probables... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windhandel is Dutch for 'airtrade', selling goods who do not excist.

  25. Great by jd142 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love it. It is a great way to teach people not to trust everything they read on the net. And WhiteKnight, all the info is made up. The SEC made sure that you can't invest in the company or use the made up info to actually lose money. That was in the article.

    We have often joked about doing something similar with viruses. Setting up a hotmail account and sending all the user in our department an attachment. The attachment would write to a log on our network and put up a dialog box that said something like "So you just ran a program from some joker on the internet. You've just lost all your work and your boss has been notified."

    We haven't done it of course, but we dream.

    1. Re:Great by IsThisNickTaken · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine did something like this after the "I love you" virus made its rounds. He wrote a script to teach the users a lesson. The script emailed him to tell him who opened it and also told the user not to trust random attachments from people you know. After the first few users were busted, word spread around not to open the email from my friend.

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you won't even trust real information on the Internet. Is Slashdot even real? I don't know, maybe they make all of this up...

    3. Re:Great by ethereal · · Score: 1

      I guess that really taught them, didn't it :)

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    4. Re:Great by nusuth · · Score: 1
      Is Slashdot even real? I don't know, maybe they make all of this up...

      Yeah, it strikes me odd that one can write so many comments a day and even write some of them simultaneously. Are you for real Mr. Coward? And what kind of a name is that?

      --

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

  26. I found one of them by mrroot · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    I Heart Sorting Networks
    1. Re:I found one of them by devleopard · · Score: 1

      Classic.

      --
      The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
    2. Re:I found one of them by dionwr · · Score: 1

      >Classic.
      >"If you put an infinite number of monkeys at typewriters, eventually one will bash out the source code for Windows."

      And a hundred of them will write improvements to it. :)

      --
      Make a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    3. Re:I found one of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>"If you put an infinite number of monkeys at typewriters, eventually one will bash out the source code for Windows."

      >And a hundred of them will write improvements to it. :)

      Nah, they can't, 'cause the source is closed.

      Posting AC because this is just OT.

    4. Re:I found one of them by Captain_Jackass · · Score: 1

      "If you put an infinite number of monkeys at typewriters, eventually one will bash out the source code for Windows."

      10 monkeys, 5 minutes.

  27. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You assume most computer geeks don't care about financial matters, just because you don't. That's just because you're still in school and living with mommy.

  28. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by bliss · · Score: 1

    I just don't care about most things financial.

    The easiest way to get to sleep for me is to hear one of those interesting (and I use the term loosely) reports.

    --
    The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic --Joseph Stalin
  29. You cannot invest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is NO company by that name. What are you going to invest in? Actually, send your cash to me, I'll invest it for a fee of only $5.95!

  30. old news by devleopard · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    I submitted this on Monday (I mentioned it on my website) I was logged in, not anonymous. So much for logged in users taking precedence over anonymous users :-)

    --
    The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
    1. Re:old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the hell is this whining about rejected submissions 'informative'?

      Dude, maybe your write-up sucked?

    2. Re:old news by geekoid · · Score: 2

      man, that sig has got to piss off the monkeys.
      "UUu ahh uuu AAAaaaaAAhhhhEEEE"
      translation:"we would never write that crap, speaking of which, I'm now going to fling some at you!"

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is an interesting chart of the FTC's similar pages: http://www.wemarket4u.net/

  31. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by bliss · · Score: 1

    "You assume most computer geeks don't care about financial matters, just because you don't. That's just because you're still in school and living with mommy."

    I just think that most of the interest in such things is usually either from business majors or people with a great deal of cash.

    --
    The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of a million is a statistic --Joseph Stalin
  32. Now... the REAL test... by Restil · · Score: 2

    will be when someone "discovers" one of the fake sites, submits it to slashdot, it gets posted (of course), and the comments start rolling in.

    How long will it take before someone comments that its fake. We're quick to point out Xbox emulator fakes when we see them, but would we necessarily discover the nonexistance of a company when its intent is to defraud and not just to boost the false ego of a few misguided geeks.

    So yeah, go find them. And when you find one, don't claim you found one, submit it to slashdot instead. Take the joke all the way! :)

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
  33. Over Subscribed by Brownstar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pre-IPO Investment Oversubscribed!

    McWhortle Enterprises has had to stop accepting investors for Stage 1 of its Pre-IPO investment after the program was over-subscribed by nearly 200%. Because of the enormous demand, we will, for a very limited time, accept new investors into this program.


    Darn it, I was all ready to sign up, but I guess the rest of the slashdot community got to it before me.

    1. Re:Over Subscribed by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Darn. And I had a really big pile of zorkmids from my job as a papershuffler on Flood Control Dam #3 I was all set to send them.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Over Subscribed by nomadic · · Score: 1

      There's always the Frobozz Magical Pre-IPO Investment Company.

    3. Re:Over Subscribed by FlatEarther · · Score: 1

      Dohhhhh! Now they tell us it's just a fake company. I remortgaged my house to just to be one of the first to buy one of their bio hazard alert detectors. I should have realized that something was wrong when I sat down at the local burger bar and it failed to go off at all when it should have been warning me that I had entered a Biosafety Level 4 zone.

  34. The war by Syberghost · · Score: 5, Funny

    Funny, Bush didn't mention the increased funding for the War on Stupidity last night...

    1. Re:The war by 4of12 · · Score: 2

      Funny, Bush didn't mention the increased funding for the War on Stupidity last night...

      Well, doh - like- uh, Stupidity is one of our most plentiful national assets. Why would we be so much in a hurry to declare a war on stupidity?

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    2. Re:The war by sharkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because Bush is fighting for, rather than against, perhaps?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    3. Re:The war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Where I work we have a "War on Talent". True story :)

    4. Re:The war by JordanH · · Score: 2, Funny
      • Funny, Bush didn't mention the increased funding for the War on Stupidity last night...

      Sure he did. To make sure that the enemy doesn't catch on, the references were encoded so that only really smart people would, uh.

      Oh, uhhmm. You're right. No mention of a new War on Stupidity.

    5. Re:The war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is a lot funnier than the for/against comment. Mode it up Liberal Wacko's.

      This incendiary comment was brought to you by "Wammo", it's a text-editor AND a flame-war starter. Favorite of Trolls everywhere.

    6. Re:The war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must work for a recording label.

    7. Re:The war by global_diffusion · · Score: 2

      Sadly, it's not that funny. Did anybody read his recent state of the union address? He basically rehashed all the propaganda we've beeb told in the past year.

      Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs - set to go off without warning.

      Keep the people scared and they'll let us do whatever we want...

    8. Re:The war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be great. I'ld much rather see him fight himself.

  35. Looks like a lot of the Spam I've been getting... by Trekologer · · Score: 2

    If you look at the testimonials, it reads just like the typical MLM/"Not MLM!" scam spams that I've been getting lately, complete with the vague (un)identifying info. But this really begs the question: Why are people stupid enough to fall for these scams in the first place? I am strongly convinced that a majority of Americans are completely braindead.

  36. found one! by displaytest · · Score: 1, Funny

    found one!

  37. so _thats_ what http://www.enron.com was! by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Redundant

    ba-dum ching!

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  38. How about a sucker detector by wessto · · Score: 1

    Maybe the SEC should advertise another product on the site called the SuckerDetector. Come on, who would really think that this device is even possible?

  39. Here's Another One!! by dloolb · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just check Google for matching phrases! http://www.wemarket4u.net/prosperity/

    --
    The electric yellow has got me by the brain banana
    1. Re:Here's Another One!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Better yet, check the root of the site, you get a list of "FTC Teaser Pages".

  40. Your mommy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Your mommy and daddy care about financial matters, though. When you finally move away from home, and they grow old, you're going to have to provide for mommy and daddy, so the bad government won't come and take them away to the glue factory.

    I think there's a "preferences" page you can use to filter out financial stories, instead of bitching about them and publically proclaiming you don't care.

    Talk to the checkbox.

  41. I want in! by (void*) · · Score: 4, Funny

    Imagine getting paid by the SEC to make up stuff about a non-existent company. Where do I sign up?

    1. Re:I want in! by MasterKayne · · Score: 1

      http://www.andersen.com/website.nsf/content/Career sExperiencedRecruitingHome !OpenDocument

    2. Re:I want in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here? I couldn't get through to it to check, though. Probably uses the same connection as the "scam" sites we just Slashdotted.

    3. Re:I want in! by Ogerman · · Score: 2

      Imagine getting paid by the SEC to make up stuff about a non-existent company. Where do I sign up?

      Probably your local unemployment office. But keep in mind the job description requires at least 2 years prior experience working for a former dotCom. (-:

    4. Re:I want in! by spacefrog · · Score: 1

      If you are any good at it, I am sure you can far better in private industry!

    5. Re:I want in! by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      You saw the log in at the top of this page, right?

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  42. Who pays for these websites? by mrroot · · Score: 2

    OK, who pays for the development and hosting of these web sites? I assume it is my tax dollars being used to tell some gullable shmuck how gullable they really are. My guess is they don't learn anything from this, or worse yet, they think they've learned something but really haven't.

    --
    I Heart Sorting Networks
    1. Re:Who pays for these websites? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      Lol. I love people who define taxes as:

      Money I pay to my government that I'd better be paid back in full for.

      Dummy. Taxes are to distribute the wealth of your economy to those less fortunate. Yes, people with less brains than you constitutes those less fortunate.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Who pays for these websites? by mrroot · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      Ignoramus,
      If you are implying that I define taxes as "Money I pay to my government that I'd better be paid back in full for" you are wrong.

      Here is how I see it:

      "Money that I pay to the government that should be used in a responsible and helpful way... not wasted."

      I can think of many better ways to help the less fortunate than building websites to try to trick people. Besides, the neediest people in our contry don't even have internet access, and don't have enough money to consider investing in some bogus company.

      --
      I Heart Sorting Networks
    3. Re:Who pays for these websites? by CMiYC · · Score: 2

      Oh come on now. I very much doubt that millions of your tax money has been wasted on these sites. I'm sure its much cheaper for your tax money to be spent on helping letimate company suffer when a couple thousand braindeads file chapter 11. As someone else posted, lets assume worse case they are spending $50k on this site alone. BFD. $50,000 is nothing spread over the millions of people in our country. Quite honestly, I feel that these sites are successful if just ONE person walks away from each site and says "Damn, How could I be so stupid?" Fortuantly the people that they will get through to are people who just haven't made the connection to reality yet. Granted I'm sure there are probably 100x more people who get to the last page and are still saying "BUT WHERE DO I INVEST????"

    4. Re:Who pays for these websites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I love this garbage. Up jerks the knee. This whimsical little project couldn't have cost anywhere near enough for you to register it in a personal sense.


      A lot of people have not yet learned some of the bedrock realities of the internet, and so if they see something that looks a certain way they believe it has some reliability it doesn't. The reality is that scams hurt and cost everyone, by increasing market volatility and reducing investment potential for valid companies.


      A small, doubtless inexpensive project like this hardly deserves this kind of libertarian "caveat emptor" attack.

    5. Re:Who pays for these websites? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      Good point, although I'd charge that you don't neccessarily know better ways to help your country than your government. I'm just saying that it's a pretty unfounded complaint given the scope of the purpose of taxes, and the complexities inherent in distributing them in such a way that the government won't be the recipiant of glib remarks like the parent post.

      I realize, of course, that this is an extremely unpopular point of view these days ... :)

      I'd be intersted to see ya throw up some numbers or supporting arguments in terms of how much money the SEC gets from public taxes, and how they go about spending that money.

      BTW, stopping investment fraud is pretty paramount to an efficient capitalist system, so if you're down with fast-n-furious capitalism (a system who's sole purpose is to promote and motivate the efficient use of resources), the goal of this project is in everyone's interest, not just the dumb (or gullible, or whatever) people.

      Then again, if you're down for regulated markets, I agree that the money could be better spent on developing laws that would cut down on the ease of committing investment fraud in the first place.

      We're not likely to see it, as such regulations slow trade and business (gasp!), but it would certainly result in less buyers having to beware, IMHO.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    6. Re:Who pays for these websites? by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right. The neediest people don't have computers, so why have these web sites that are aimed at helping those who have computers and spare money to invest? Of course the neediest don't have cars either, so let's rip up all the highways since they don't benefit everyone, just the select few who have their own mode of transportation.

      Face it, the government helps people avoid stupid choices. How much money has been spent on anti-smoking ads? I would much rather have $500,000 spent on these websites, which help prevent uninformed people from giving their life savings to a con artist, instead of spending even just $100,000 spent on helping prevent INFORMED people from spending $10 a week of their money on a legitimate product, made by a legitimate company, which by the way employs thousands, and pays millions in tax dollars.

      (Note: I am not involved in the tobacco industry, or its legal teams, and I do not smoke, and never have. Tobacco smoke aggrevates my asthma, and makes it hard for me to breath. Yet, they make a legal product, which people can use if they choose to, knowing full well that it is not healthy. And if you want a smoke-free restaurant, go to one. Let the restaurant owners decide if their customer can smoke inside or not. When my wife and I go out to dinner, we can choose to go to a non-smoking restaurant, or one with a smoking area. The one we normally go to has a smoking area, and better food.)

    7. Re:Who pays for these websites? by SnakeStu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dummy. Taxes are to distribute the wealth of your economy to those less fortunate.

      OK, probably a troll, but just in case you're really that misguided... Let's just presume that your idealistic notion is accurate (although it's demonstrably false; see below, where this rather-long response ties back to the SEC site topic). What are the real implications? The surface implication for those who can't think more deeply is that taxes are a fairy tale come true -- steal from the rich and give to the poor, very Robin Hood. But how noble is that really? There are some deeper implications that many taxpayers might find immoral, such as:

      • Promotion of Force/Violence. Robin Hood is holding an arrow to your head with the force of a bent bow behind it. The more modern picture is the government enforcing taxes at gunpoint (try not paying your taxes and resisting arrest when they come for you -- the guns will eventually be made visible, whether during the arrest or carried by guards after you've been dragged off to a detention facility).
      • Promotion of Sloth. By rewarding most those who contribute least and punishing those who contribute the most, there is no more logical action than to cease to contribute. Yes, that means that the only logical route is to immediately stop contributing -- don't work another moment. The only reason people continue to work is emotional -- they have ethical problems with sloth, they don't want to be seen as freeloaders, etc. But the very system they support with their work promotes the vice (sloth) which they are loathe to accept for themselves.

      Actually I could go on but I'm on my lunch break and must wrap this up before it is time to go back "on the clock" to support those on welfare. (Actually, I'm being partially sarcastic; read on for the debunking of that notion, along with the debunking of your original idea about what taxes mean.)

      So if, as you incorrectly state, taxes are to take from the rich and give to the poor (where 'poor' -- according to you -- includes poor in mind as well as bank), this "noble" idea is only noble on the surface, and evil lurks not far beneath.

      Luckily, taxpayers can rest assured that taxes don't mean what you say they mean...

      ...but they should be made uneasy again by seeing, below, what they should mean versus what they do mean at present (speaking from the US perspective, to stay on topic of the SEC). By the way, what you implied matches neither what taxes are nor what they should be.

      I stated above that your concept of taxes is demonstrably false. How could that be demonstrated? Follow the bouncing penny! Follow the funds to see where they really go. The bulk of tax funds go to government programs that are ostensibly for the common good. Not the good of just those unwilling or unable to contribute to society and the economy, but everyone. (Maybe it's different where you are, but around here we don't have roads and highways set aside for 'poor' people only.)

      Had I not said "ostensibly," there would be no difference between what taxes are and what they should be. The difference is in the beneficiary. Ask yourself, who creates taxes (generally speaking; I realize there is some complexity, but it can be bypassed safely at the moment)? From an entirely selfish perspective, would it not make sense for taxes to benefit those who create them? Of course, our taxes don't go directly to our elected "representatives" (other than in the form of regularly-increased and already-very-large salaries), but taxes we pay do go, indirectly, to support the political careers of incumbents.

      This really should be obvious by now, but you might miss it, since you claim to believe in something that is obviously not the case. So let me illustrate: Pat Senator wants to be re-elected. Pat Senator knows that a certain government program for the "common" good is particularly good for constituents in the district responsible for that re-election. Pat Senator also knows that the program needs funding, and that the burden of funding for it can be spread over a much wider population than the Senator's constituents. Time for a new tax!

      Tax funds are only marginally used to "take from the rich and give to the poor." Vastly, they are used to support political careers, by supporting businesses that make campaign contributions and by supporting constituents who vote. So what should be for the common good, really is for the good of politicians.

      This isn't news, by the way. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't already know -- just what they might prefer to ignore.

      The question originally was, who pays for the SEC web sites? The implication, I believe, is why should taxpayers pay for these sites? It's a valid question -- for reasons already noted beyond the scope of my message, the SEC sites will do little or nothing to "help the poor." Are they part of a program to help the common good (really)? Are they part of a program that will help a politician's career? Or are they the result of a side-effect of a corrupt political system, that being insufficient "change control." In other words, perhaps they're just the result of somebody saying, "Hey, I've got an idea" and there being insufficient structure to prevent the idea from taking form without proof of validity.

      Regardless, it sounds like a government-spec government program: An ineffective use (a.k.a., waste) of resources.

      There goes my lunch hour...

    8. Re:Who pays for these websites? by The+Man · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Besides, the neediest people in our contry don't even have internet access, and don't have enough money to consider investing in some bogus company.

      Nor will they ever, if every potential employer loses his or her money to investment fraud.

    9. Re:Who pays for these websites? by nomadic · · Score: 2

      The question originally was, who pays for the SEC web sites?

      The SEC.

      So the question becomes, who pays for the SEC. The answer is, simply, only those who benefit from the SEC's operation. The SEC is funded by the fees investors pay on stock transactions, and this more than pays for the SEC budget. They decreased the fee last year because they were taking in several times what they spent, and the Republicans in Congress had a problem with that (personally, if the fees weren't onerous I think they should have kept it going at those rates)

    10. Re:Who pays for these websites? by SirSlud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice post. Well thought out and presented. For the sake of this argument, a wealthy person is anyone who can afford a house and car. What we might call the lower-middle class.

      Three comments:

      1. I didn't say this was the /only/ purpose of taxes. :P Yes, I didn't qualify my statement, but you yourself admit that this is at least one of the purposes of taxes. Also note that I never said that this wealth was distributed in cash form (although it is, through some programs, obviously). This redistribution goes towards many things: education, support, training, whatever. That's still a redistribution of wealth in my opinion.

      2. Your argument regarding the fact that people who get this money (the poor) are being rewarded for being sloth is based on the assumption that motivation comes from wealth. Ie, that money /is/ a reward, and that the freeloaders (the poor, the stupid) are perfectly happy to live off the backs of others. While we don't have time to debate such an axiom, it is not the axiom under under which I base my viewpoints. I believe people's primary motivation in life is to attain a social status by way of participating and contributing to the society they live in. Note that I'm not talking about material status, although in the world we live in, this is one of the only ways to attain and advertise one's position within the social heirarchy. Many an economist and phycologist have promoted the goal to contibute to one's society as the primary motivator of humans. I tend to agree .. while we equate money as reward in this society, the poor people I know are not as interested in money as they are to have the ability to have the resources required to begin contributing to their society. While the church of today is money, I'm of the opinion that it is only the sufficiently conditioned who has come to believe that people are only after enough weath to exist and/or to spend on consumption rather than self-betterment. Note, exceptions are abound, but I suppose I'm just saying that I believe the numbers fall more in the favour of those who wish to contribute rather than those who are truely content with receiving state-distributed welfare of various sorts. It is, in my opinion, only the widening gap in incomes and standards of living that are contributing to the increasing number of people who are so unhappy regarding their relative lack of wealth that they cannot focus on their desire to contribute to society in the first place. Ironically, most of the wealthy people I know (I work in that world) value money as reward FAR more than the poor people I know (I socialize in a very bohemian social circle). It's frusterating to see wealthy people suggest that poor people are driven by the same things they are, and then /withhold/ that very value to the point where these poor people can't afford the things that they both value .. food, water, rent, and cultural opportunities such as socializing. Consider the disproportionate amount of people in this society that wish to contribute in a vain that is unsupported by big business (arts, culture, non-quantitative branches of medicine, etc, etc .. whatever the wealthy elite don't value.) Essentially I am saying that withholding the redistribution of wealth, at least within a society that does not go to the ends of the earth to promote material gain as the primary human motivator, results in more people unwilling to contribute rather than people freeloading off the system.

      3. > would it not make sense for taxes to benefit those who create them

      Programs for the common good includes the poor. It's an obvious enough point that, certainly, those who create taxes should see a reasonable (by reasonable, this is set by the social barometer of the society the taxes are collected in) return in the form of programs and services that help them. I suppose that the relative contention to my point simply illustrates where that barometer is.

      All of this is notwithstanding the most sacreligious viewpoint I hold: that much of the opposition to taxes is not due to those who 'freeload' on it, but rather the disproportionate and unhealthy value that those with wealth place on it. If only they could 'let go' a little and made poor people happier (and thus far more likely to re-enter society as a contributing member), they might come to realize that freeloading is, for all intents and purposes, a creation of the very populous who is so disagreeable with the idea of redistributing their priviledged earnings. And of course .. some can, and do! But not enough, yet ...

      4. Back to the real issue at hand. Free-market capitalism is touted as the system that leads to the most efficient use of available resources (be they material, or effort). It would appear that squashing investment fraud is one such way to ensure that those resources are fed back into the fast-and-furious system, much to the delight of the big business types, rather than to the shady ones who don't feed back into the system. Therefore, I charge that, if you are into the free-market capitalist school of thought, you'd believe that this does benifit everyone in so far as it ensures that all generated value goes back to the proper religion (if you will).

      Obstinately is a good word, but please don't forget that nothing is a top-down system. The more people that perceive that taxes go to the fat cats, the more likely fat-cats will feel that their self-interest isn't as likely to hurt them in terms of their public relations. There are many ways to buck that trend (and it is getting worse), but being reluctant to contribute to the taxation system is a protest that ends up more on the backs of the already unfortunate (and, as you point out, all of us) than the well-off polician who, really, at the end of the day, could live with less financial perks to his job. Also, it's somewhat of a skewered viewpoint, as it relates back to my first point, and that part of this viewpoint is promoted by big business to swing your trust from the public sector to the private one. And if you don't believe all that ... well, do a little reading from schools of thought that are vohemently opposed to by our current social and economic system.

      But really, good argument. I see your views, but I choose to believe that part of your axioms are resonsible for these 'freeloaders' we (well, you and others, not I) are so loathe to support through taxes.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    11. Re:Who pays for these websites? by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 3, Funny

      :) actually it would seem that the SEC is the gullible one in this. I bet some young MLM super marketdroid made a mint on selling this idea to the SEC and telling them that they need to pay himto help them setup this system...

      scam of the century for whomever came up with this idea and got paid for it!
      .

    12. Re:Who pays for these websites? by Computer! · · Score: 1

      The worst part about smoking: it's cooler than not smoking.

      attn: moderators, I know this post is off-topic, but I posted without my +1 bonus, and you're supposed to mod things UP, not down.

      --
      If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
    13. Re:Who pays for these websites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I assume it is my tax dollars being used to tell some gullable shmuck how gullable they really are.

      No. Your tax dollars are all earmarked for lint elimination research.

    14. Re:Who pays for these websites? by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      Your argument regarding the fact that people who get this money (the poor) are being rewarded for being sloth is based on the assumption that motivation comes from wealth. Ie, that money /is/ a reward, and that the freeloaders (the poor, the stupid) are perfectly happy to live off the backs of others. While we don't have time to debate such an axiom, it is not the axiom under under which I base my viewpoints. I believe people's primary motivation in life is to attain a social status by way of participating and contributing to the society they live in.

      This would be true in a world in which it is possible to stay alive without material wealth. But in the real world it takes wealth (in the form of food, shelter, and clothing) to stay alive. I believe that people's primary focus is (or should be) remaining alive. It is only once that primary focus is taken care of that we can worry about social status and contribution. So by stripping those who create wealth (the "stuff of life") of that wealth, and rewarding those who contribute nothing to the continuation of life by handing the wealth to them, you are in effect punishing those who value life, and rewarding the suicidal. That way lies death and destruction. Note that I'm not referring to the kind of finanicial wealth accumulated by playing games with corrupt politicians, but the kind of wealth (if you can call it that) generated by the average working stiff as they toil in the offices, factories, and farms of the world.

      Many an economist and phycologist have promoted the goal to contibute to one's society as the primary motivator of humans.

      A motivator, perhaps. But not the primary motivator unless a substantial portion of the population is suicidal.

      I tend to agree .. while we equate money as reward in this society, the poor people I know are not as interested in money as they are to have the ability to have the resources required to begin contributing to their society.

      "The Lord helps those who help themselves..."
      So do I (even though I'm not Xtian). I'm perfectly happy to hand over some of my time or money to people that I know personally, and that I know are truly making an effort to better themselves. I've have "issues" with blithely handing over my money to some anonymous organization (govt or church) that presumes to decide who my wealth should help, and how. I believe that I should be able to decide what becomes of any wealth that I create.

      It is, in my opinion, only the widening gap in incomes and standards of living...

      Ya know, this is a pet peeve of mine. We keep hearing about this increasing gap between the rich and poor. But we never see any real numbers to back it up. What is the rate of increase of that gap? Where are the statistics that show the gap, and trace its fluctuation over time? There was a pretty significant gap between the rich and poor in, say, Victorian England. You're telling me that the gap has worsened since then? Prove it. Because I have to tell you, my feeling (based purely on anecdotal evidence, because I haven't done the research either) is that the gap is actually decreasing as the developed world flattens into "the great middle class", and the third world gradually becomes developed.

      It's frusterating to see wealthy people suggest that poor people are driven by the same things they are, and then /withhold/ that very value to the point where these poor people can't afford the things that they both value .. food, water, rent, and cultural opportunities such as socializing.

      Maybe those poor people should get off their ass and work for a living then, rather than relying on handouts from the wealthy folks. Ok, that's probably a little harsh. But really, where is it written that I must hand over my wealth to someone who hasn't earned it somehow. Life isn't free. If the wealthy person wasn't around, the poor person would have to earn the right to stay alive somehow. Why should they be get unearned life just because someone else did some work?

      Consider the disproportionate amount of people in this society that wish to contribute in a vain that is unsupported by big business (arts, culture, non-quantitative branches of medicine, etc, etc .. whatever the wealthy elite don't value.)

      First of all, what makes you assume that the "wealthy elite" won't value it? Wealthy people buy art. Wealthy people buy music. Art and music couldn't exist without wealthy people providing the means for the artists to stay alive (by paying them for their work). Otherwise said artists would be staring at the rear end of an ox while they ploughed a field to grow some food and stay alive.

      Reality is a pretty harsh place. Either you create some wealth (primary wealth like food or shelter, or secondary wealth like labor or art), or you die. Either way, you will have earned it.

      The only other choice is to take unearned wealth from someone else through the use of force. Not only is that considered immoral by most people, but it's the road to death (which is probably why it's immoral - dead people don't have morals). Take unearned wealth, and the people you have stolen from will eventually be unable to live (maybe not this generation, but eventually). Once the wealth-creators are all dead, how will you stay alive?

    15. Re:Who pays for these websites? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      > Ya know, this is a pet peeve of mine. We keep hearing about this increasing gap between the rich and poor. But we never see any real numbers to back it up. What is the rate of increase of that gap? Where are the statistics that show the gap, and trace its fluctuation over time? There was a pretty significant gap between the rich and poor in, say, Victorian England. You're telling me that the gap has worsened since then? Prove it. Because I have to tell you, my feeling (based purely on anecdotal evidence, because I haven't done the research either) is that the gap is actually decreasing as the developed world flattens into "the great middle class", and the third world gradually becomes developed.

      Here's one stat (Banko Milanovic, economist at WTO): In 1988, the richest 5 percent of the people in the world had incomes that were 78 teims as big as those of the pporest 5 percent. By 1993, the top 5 percent had incomes 114 times as big as those of the bottom 5 percent. If you make 35,000$ Canadian a year (I make double, and I'm 23 years old), you are richer than 98 percent of the world's population.

      Think of post communist Russia. From 2 million poor to 60 million post-communism. (Not that I'm in any way advertising communism .. just, they got a free-market, supposedly)

      Nations like sub-Saharan Africa grew their GDP 36%from about 1950 to 1980 (representing the post-war regulated market economy), but have fallen by 15 percent in the last 20 years (as the free-market has been pressured onto the world economy stage). Other nations are similar.

      From a WTO report: "Indeed, growth in the developing world has been disappointing, with the typical country registering negligible growth."

      Mexican wages have fallen about 20 percent in 1994.

      All of this notwithstanding the question: is all of this really making the people in these other countries very happy? :)

      The numbers are there. It is an actual falsehood to believe otherwise, even according to the pro-free-market capitalist WTO. The gap has an continues to grow. It's simply not in the best interest of the most powerful interests to look at them, or present them in that little ad they call the news. How do you think the bearer of news like this could explain it to their shareholders or investors? ;)

      Anyhow, thats just sad about saying doing work. Other people want to do work. It is you who do not see that there are mechanisms in place to keep the poor down, as manifested in how the wealthy perceive them. I understand that it is difficult to feel good about being in this system, but it is important to know what it does.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    16. Re:Who pays for these websites? by Untimely+Ripp'd · · Score: 1

      Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they don't work hard, and just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they do. The creation of wealth is a relatively mysterious thing, but the key piece of information is that in a capitalist society, the relative value of capital versus labor is not determined by some sort of meaningful market, it is determined by the capitalists. Actually, much of it is also determined by an intermediary caste of priests, the managers.

      I worked for a super-capitalist once. At the point where he went from being just really rich to being super-rich, the 300 or so employees of his company -- without whom he simply could never have made his mega-fortune -- went from living paycheck-to-paycheck to living paycheck-to-paycheck while working for a smug, self-satisfied jerk.

      We've created an economic system. It's fairly arbitrary, although it does seem to have certain "natural" characteristics. It is useful to us because it generates material wealth. It also, unfortunately, tends to aggregate most of the wealth amongst a small percentage of the population. There is no particular justice to this aggregation, it's just a side-effect of the system.

      Whenever I hear someone arguing that stealing all that wealth from the people who created it will just make the wealth-creators opt out, I have to wonder: How come the wealth-creators weren't opting out when the average chief executive earned 10% of what he does now? Do you really suppose they would all up and quit, and could not be replaced, if we simply mandated that a corporation could not pay its CEO more than 20 times what it pays its janitors? What makes you think that? In your personal experience, are the CEOs of companies the most intelligent or talented or wise or useful people in those companies?

      --

      And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...

    17. Re:Who pays for these websites? by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      Here's one stat (Banko Milanovic, economist at WTO): In 1988, the richest 5 percent of the people in the world had incomes that were 78 teims as big as those of the pporest 5 percent. By 1993, the top 5 percent had incomes 114 times as big as those of the bottom 5 percent.

      Thank you for the numbers. It's nice to see someone actually presenting hard data. However, two data points do not a trend line make. Especially over a mere 5 year span - that doesn't really indicate any kind of long term trend, and may just be a fluctuation.

      Having said that, your post motivated to actually get off my ass and do a quick tour around the internet to see what data I could find. Looks like there really has been a divergence between wealthy and poor nations. However, that divergence started at about the same time as the industrial revolution kicked off. The gap we are seeing is the gap between developed and undeveloped nations, which has grown as the developed nations became more developed and other nations stagnated. Prior to the industrial revolution, China was wealthier than the "western nations". That gap rapidly closed once the the machine age kicked off. Now China is well behind other more developed nations. I'm sure that this gap will continue to fluctuate.

      If you make 35,000$ Canadian a year (I make double, and I'm 23 years old),

      Not that you're bragging or anything :-)

      you are richer than 98 percent of the world's population.

      That's nice. It doesn't really comtribute to your point though - doesn't mean the gap's widening, just that there is a gap. I'm sure the average Roman was much wealthier than his "barbarian" counterparts. Ditto the average Egyptian or Greek during their respective times of pre-eminence. High-tech nations tend to be wealthier than their low-tech neighbors. Duh. The thing is, the nation that has the advantage tends to change over time. And in the long run, everyone tends to get wealthier.

      Think of post communist Russia. From 2 million poor to 60 million post-communism. (Not that I'm in any way advertising communism .. just, they got a free-market, supposedly)

      Right. Because they weren't going to experience any difficulties dismantling 70 years worth of centrally planned economy and instituting a "free market". No one said it'd be easy. Just that it was the right thing to do in the long run. The reason they abandoned their old system (and that China is gradually experimenting with less regulated markets) is that the planned economy didn't work, and a free (or at least as free as the US has) economy seems to work better.

      Anyhow, thats just sad about saying doing work. Other people want to do work. It is you who do not see that there are mechanisms in place to keep the poor down, as manifested in how the wealthy perceive them. I understand that it is difficult to feel good about being in this system, but it is important to know what it does.

      Then ignore the wealthy, and work for yourself. Don't expect a handout (jobs or money). If you want to make it in this world, you have to exert some effort. It's not enough to want, you have to do. There are plenty of people who were poor but aren't anymore, and others who are poor, but are determined to not stay that way. Somehow, those mechanisms you mentioned are not keeping them down. Maybe because they are self-reliant and independent. They know the world doesn't owe them a living, they have to earn it. What's sad is that there are people that believe otherwise.

    18. Re:Who pays for these websites? by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they don't work hard, and just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they do.

      Labor does not equal value. I can work really hard to make an apple pie, but if I'm an incompetent cook, the pie will be burnt (and knowing my cooking probably inedible) - I've just worked hard to make a worthless pie. It's not quantity of labor that counts, but quality.

      the relative value of capital versus labor is not determined by some sort of meaningful market, it is determined by the capitalists

      And the capitalists are everyone who saves and invests. Which includes anyone who puts money in a bank. Realistically, the value of labor is determined by what people are willing to pay for it. Michael Jordan made millions because millions of people tuned in to see his games, and buy his merchandise. If they didn't, no team could have made enough money to afford to pay the salary Jordan got, and he would have had to settle for less.Jordan must have made more money for his team than they paid him, otherwise there wouldn't have been any point in paying him so much - it'd just bankrupt the team.

      I worked for a super-capitalist once. At the point where he went from being just really rich to being super-rich, the 300 or so employees of his company -- without whom he simply could never have made his mega-fortune -- went from living paycheck-to-paycheck to living paycheck-to-paycheck while working for a smug, self-satisfied jerk.

      I doubt you or your fellow employees would have had jobs if not for that self-satisfied jerk. If you could have found a way to make a living without whatever it was that he contributed, then why didn't you do it. All 300 employees could have pooled their resources and started their own company without the jerk. If you couldn't do that, then perhaps the jerk making a mega-fortune was just fair compensation for his ability to provide work for 300 people.

      There is no particular justice to this aggregation, it's just a side-effect of the system.

      So say you. I would argue that there is justice in rewarding those more able to create wealth with, well, wealth. Who better to decide what to do with accumulated wealth than those talented enough to accumulate it in the first place. That said, I think there is some injustice in the system, in that some who are incapable of creating wealth are able to accumulate it - usually by using corrupt legislators.

      Whenever I hear someone arguing that stealing all that wealth from the people who created it will just make the wealth-creators opt out, I have to wonder: How come the wealth-creators weren't opting out when the average chief executive earned 10% of what he does now?

      Because that 10% was all that they could earn at the time. There's a difference between getting 0.1x because that's all that is available to earn, and getting 0.1x because you earned x and someone took 0.9x from you. One is a just reward, the other is an injust penalty. Why punish someone for doing well? Should we take away Michael Jordan's millions because basketball players 20 years ago made 10% (or less) of his income?

      In your personal experience, are the CEOs of companies the most intelligent or talented or wise or useful people in those companies?

      Having dealt personally with only a few CEOs, I don't have enough data to say. However, they must be doing something useful, otherwise there wouldn't be such intense competition to recruit them. If being a successful CEO was easy, CEOs would be a dime a dozen, and their salaries would be a lot lower.

    19. Re:Who pays for these websites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ya know, this is a pet peeve of mine. We keep hearing about this increasing gap between the rich and poor. But we never see any real numbers to back it up. What is the rate of increase of that gap? Where are the statistics that show the gap, and trace its fluctuation over time?

      Well one easy data point: CIA world factbook The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

      It's a well known fact for the US case. The rich get richer, the poorest break even. In Europe, due to higher taxation (whether it's good or moral or not), in some cases, the employees got their share, or in some other cases, the State got the improvements ; in general everyone got better, depending on the cases ; US is the extreme.

      Maybe those poor people should get off their ass and work for a living then, rather than relying on handouts from the wealthy folks. Ok, that's probably a little harsh. But really, where is it written that I must hand over my wealth to someone who hasn't earned it somehow.

      STOP. First a point: you must realize that the effect of some policies (like globalization), is not neutral at all for all people. If lowering the barrier of trades, gets you more opportunities and more money, but kills someone's job, the hard question is: why shouldn't he be compensated? After all, the gov. used a policy which is contradictory to his interests. And yes, I do know many people who were simple workers, who got jobless, or were close to be (example: my grandfather, paid minimal wage for his entire career - 20+ years in the same factory, retired only 2 years before the decades-old factory got bankrupt - because of foreign competition). Of course, they _could_ find another job, but there is definitly a cost that they have to pay.

      Note also that free market theory says global income improve, but say nothing about its repartition: it is possible in theory that 0.1% of the people gets incredibly better and 99.9% of the people get in desperate situation.

      Maybe those poor people should get off their ass and work for a living then, rather than relying on handouts from the wealthy folks. Ok, that's probably a little harsh. But really, where is it written that I must hand over my wealth to someone who hasn't earned it somehow. Life isn't free.

      You are basically contending that poor people are lazy people. This is not true, at least 100% true, especially in the US and the UK: you have a whole set of "working poor" people, who are barely earning their living (and sometimes have to do several jobs, and a big worktime). But note, that there are also all quite a number of people, who didn't get the chance to have a good education, who are old and where fired when machines doing the same job as them arrived, the people who are losing their jobs due to globlization, etc... Points are: 1) being poor is not equal to be lazy, it can be lack of luck, evolution of economy or worse due to the same policies that allow some other people to earn more money 2) even if you are in the proportion of the lazy and poor people, then there are deep psychological, and social reasons for you to be that way, and this reasons are caused partly by the society. [for instance, a cousin of mine is now on welfare for one year, because he is disgusted for having robbed in some way or another by employers 3 times in a row - the last time, the worse, being the employer pocketed the money, didn't pay any salary and flew to another country - I don't think it's a good reason, but also going back in time, you see that he didn't have any chance of getting a good education before, that he had TREMEDOUS family problems, etc... which is why he could only start in an entry-level job, tried to kill himself, etc.. etc.. and more common facts for poor people]. .

      If the wealthy person wasn't around, the poor person would have to earn the right to stay alive somehow.

      Haha! But they would do much better individually, because they won't have the competition of the wealthy persons (more efficient, with more capitals, or with more education). For instance quite-below-average programmers would now be top programmers. Of course, collectively they would do worse (i.e. higher price because more paid work needed per item), but it's absolutly not obvious that if top wealthy people were to disappear suddenly the poorest wouldn't live a better life.

    20. Re:Who pays for these websites? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      Jebus buddy. You're giving the typical elite answer: "Sure, the numbers are bad, but in the long run, just trust us, it'll pay off." How do you think you'd take that if you were in, say, Argentina, or Uguanda, and you'd seen the cost of water rise, wages plummet, and your countries GDP (a terrible measure, but it seems to speak to capitalists) drop 15% in the last 20 years. Or if the IMF lent your country money on the condition that you privatize your water system and contract its management out (while tripling the cost) to 2 or 3 mutlinational American companies? It's not paying off. The gap actually started in the UK in the 15th century, when the feudal system started taking away common land from the people. Capitalism involved removing the rights to resources from people. Now, like I said, I'm not bashing capitalism, I'm bashing the free-market. You say the gap has been widening .. well, it's been widening faster and far more readically since the drive for free-market capitalism has been pushed onto the world state. Look, even the WTO, the champion of this movement, admits it (although not readily or easily.)

      > There are plenty of people

      Man, you can say whatever you like to make you feel good about working hard. Really now, you're not saying anything that most other people who work hard and suspect the poor are nothing but lazy people. Plenty, in this case, is pittance to the number of people who don't escape poverty.

      Anyhow man, I'm just saying, the gap is growing ever fast. If you want to take the "wait and see" approach, well, fine, but thats the same stance thats been thrown around since the 15th century. Nobody buys it except those who have already benifited from it, which is a smaller and smaller amount of people earning a disproportionately larger and larger amount. I'm in that basket, you're in that basket .. and so while it's tough to see or admit, it is my view that those who cannot see it or refuse to are simply too dependant on your kind of mind set to justify working the longest hours in the world with one of the highest levels of emotional and psycological distress. Evolution will manifest protest in the form of violence. It's funny, cause the elite are always caught standing with their pants down, going "Hey, whats wrong? Nothing wrong! What are you doing?! Nothing's wrong! Okay, you're poor, but c'mon, just wait, you won't be .. well, or maybe your grandkids won't be. Well, if they arn't lazy asses." while posts like mine are routinely ignored by those with wealth for no other reason than it would infer that sacrifice and voluntary distribution of wealth and power is the only way to make this world work. A frightening proposition for any sufficiently well-conditioned capitalist.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    21. Re:Who pays for these websites? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      > If the wealthy person wasn't around, the poor person would have to earn the right to stay alive somehow.

      A bunch of those poor people could do you job better than you ever hope to do it. Thats what scares you so much. If you don't believe it, it scares you into not believing it.

      What you say is only one level below what much writing and prose by the wealthy elite in the 17th and 18th free-market UK economy said: "It would be difficult to be rich if the poor were not around to do all the jobs the rich don't want to do!"

      By the way, India has the fastest growing GDP in the world, and Japan did a very good job of ressurecting their economy before the free-markets hit .. and how did they do it? High taxation, heavy government intervention in trade and development. Just a parting thought.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    22. Re:Who pays for these websites? by SimCash · · Score: 1
      Wonderful post - especially the use of game-theoretic language to make the point that the fact that taxes steal from one group to support another means that the optimal solution is to stop working. I think it was B. Franklin who said that democracy will fail when the mob realizes that they own the keys (votes) to the treasury.

      For a truly frightening statistic, I read that the bottom 51% of taxpayers pay only 4% of the taxes! They have no incentive to reduce taxes, lots of incentives to vote for new services. D'oh! There's a formula for trouble.

    23. Re:Who pays for these websites? by Untimely+Ripp'd · · Score: 1

      I can work really hard to make an apple pie, but if I'm an incompetent cook, the pie will be burnt (and knowing my cooking probably inedible) - I've just worked hard to make a worthless pie. It's not quantity of labor that counts, but quality.

      Hey, you were the one that introduced the idea that taxation is a matter of unmotivated, slothful people taking things from those hardworking wealth-creators. And we're not comparing the value of burnt pies to tasty pies. We're comparing the value of tasty pies to the value of marketing, packaging, employee supervision, and ownership of an oven.

      And the capitalists are everyone who saves and invests. Which includes anyone who puts money in a bank.

      Uhh, no. The capitalists -- at least the ones who matter -- are the few people who get to wield the power that the capital endows. It is the banker, not the saver, who decides to loan a ton of money to his brother-in-law to build too much office property during a real estate boom. It is the saver who gets screwed. Well, actually, because we decided to protect the saver by taxing the banks to create an insurance fund, it's all of us who get screwed, poor and rich alike. Except of course that the rich were paying themselves big salaries from the earnings on our savings while mismanaging the assets.

      I doubt you or your fellow employees would have had jobs if not for that self-satisfied jerk.

      Yes, and he wouldn't have had his wealth without our labor. What feature of the universe is it that makes you think this is a one-way street?

      If you could have found a way to make a living without whatever it was that he contributed, then why didn't you do it.

      Actually, I did. Immediately. And I felt really sorry for those who weren't as fortunate as I in their opportunities.

      Michael Jordan made millions because millions of people tuned in to see his games, and buy his merchandise.

      Umm.. yeah. And because we've instituted a whole bunch of laws that restrict other peoples' freedoms in order to ensure that Michael can be rewarded to the max. How much would he have earned if we didn't grant monopolies on broadcast frequencies? How much would he have earned if we didn't all pay for the justice system that enforces the NBA's monopoly on presenting the games via mass media? How much would he have earned if we hadn't extended the concept of "trademarking" (which originally protected consumers and craftsmen from shoddy counterfeits) to cover arbitrary branding, so that the Chicago Bulls could charge a tax on anyone who wanted to sell somebody a shirt that said Chicago Bulls on it? (Do you think that anyone supposes there is some association between that trademark and some standard of quality? Do you think the average Bulls fan cares whether the team or the league or the players gets a cut from the merchandise?) How much would he have earned if we insisted that celebrity endorsers are responsible for the claims they are making -- including the insinuated claims that wearing Air Jordans will let you Be Like Mike in some meaningful way?

      Michael Jordan owes almost ALL of his wealth to the existence of a variety of legal and cultural institutions that permit him to translate his talent and his hard work into cash. The average nurse, on the other hand, who by almost anybody's definition -- including, I suspect, Michael Jordan's -- is doing more important and more valuable work than Michael Jordan, simply cannot leverage her value by employing mass media.

      Taxing away the bulk of Michael Jordan's wealth to ensure that there are enough trained and talented nurses for all of us is not a moral dilemma for me.

      I would argue that there is justice in rewarding those more able to create wealth with, well, wealth.

      Our fundamental disagreement is on the question of who is creating the wealth. Just because someone is the CEO or owner of the company, doesn't mean that person created the wealth. The value of capital and management is determined by capitalists and managers. The value of labor is determined by a market, in which the suppliers are at a serious disadvantage -- they will shortly starve if they aren't working. Adam Smith, the god of free-market philosophers recognized this. He noted that it was fundamentally unjust, and recommended social remedies.

      I haven't even touched on the whole question of defining wealth. Nurses don't create wealth. Perhaps we shouldn't pay them at all. Instead, let's go to an all-volunteer health-care system.

      But the main point I was originally making was not that valuable people should not be rewarded. The point I was making is that there is no magical justice to the amount with which our system happens to reward them. I am sorry, but it is utterly transparent to me that Bill Gates has not contributed $100,000,000,000 worth of anything, tangible or intangible, to the rest of humanity. If I thought really hard, I might be able to identify a few people who had -- but I doubt if any of them were rich.

      Having dealt personally with only a few CEOs, I don't have enough data to say. However, they must be doing something useful, otherwise there wouldn't be such intense competition to recruit them. If being a successful CEO was easy, CEOs would be a dime a dozen, and their salaries would be a lot lower.

      This is an amusingly non-cynical point of view. I suspect you are less willing to assume that such wisdom underlies most of the other decisions made by authorities in our culture. For example, I expect you probably snickered appreciatively the first time you heard the line about, "Those men in Washington wouldn't be there if they didn't know what they were doing."

      But that's just my speculation. In the meantime, consider the counter-evidence. What useful thing was it that the executives of Enron were doing? Chainsaw Al was heavily recruited and handsomely rewarded by Sunbeam, a company he promptly destroyed. AS CEO of Mattel, Jill Barad managed to make $4 billion in actual cash and $12 billion in shareholder equity disappear, for which she was rewarded with a package worth about 30 million dollars, plus $750000/year for the rest of her life. Etc. etc.

      The first millionaire businessman I ever met didn't understand the difference between marginal costs and average costs. I don't mean that he was unfamiliar with the jargon, or with the curves that economists theorize about. He explicitly described his business tactics to me in a way that made it clear that he had never noticed the distinction.

      The intense competition to recruit executives has a great deal to do with the fact that they are being recruited by other executives. Like almost everybody on earth, these people overvalue themselves and their work, but unlike almost everybody else, they have the power to act on their delusions.

      If being a successful CEO was easy, CEOs would be a dime a dozen, and their salaries would be a lot lower.

      This statement makes two assumptions, neither of which is demonstrable:

      1. that the people paying the CEOs are wise.
      2. that normal market forces apply.

      I have not noticed any abundance of wisdom among the investment set or their manager priests. Actually, they seem to lead us from one folly to another, rarely learning anything from experience -- although the priests have become adept at protecting their individual interests in advance of the next catastrophe they bring to society.

      Beyond that, as I noted above, the most fundamental principle of normal market forces does not apply. The assumption behind normal market forces is that the people paying are trying to minimize the amount they pay, while the people charging are trying to maximize the amount the charge. But when it comes to executive compensation, the more the Directors pay their CEO, the more they are likely to be able to earn in their own CEO jobs.

      Since, once ensconced, the Directors have the default support of all the shareholder votes that DON'T get cast, they have almost free rein.

      Beyond all that, it's worth asking whether the system itself is fundamentally broken, in the following way:

      Part of why CEOs are paid such high salaries is because they are at the top of very large organizations. This means that a bad decision (like buying The Learning Company) can have very large consequences. So, nervous capitalists are easily persuaded by managers of the importance of buying the best CEO they can possibly afford. Maybe the solution to this is just to limit the size of corporations. This would reduce the size of the risk associated with a bad decision (and such decisions clearly happen anyway), and spread out the wealth among a larger number of managers. There are good reasons to want to reduce the size of risk.

      --

      And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...

    24. Re:Who pays for these websites? by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      Actually, what I'm saying is that the trend you are talking about is a result of the divergenc in technological level between developed and third world nations. It's happened before. It'll happen again. There's nothing you can do about it that isn't going to damage civilization as a whole in the long run.

      Argentina fell apart because it was a corrupt government with massive cronyism in state-run jobs.

      Don't like the IMF's conditions, don't borrow from them. Same way you wouldn't take out a home loan if the bank was going to screw you over.

      Capitalism. Feudalism. The two are not the same. So to argue that there is a trend going back to the 15th century, and that at the same time it is capitalism's fault, is nonsensical.

      I say plenty of people because I've seen plenty of people do it. And you're right, it does make me feel good. It makes me feel good to know that there are some people out there willing to earn a living instead of taking one.

      I grew up in a socialist country. I've seen the kind of stagnation and inefficiency a socialist form of government breeds. I don't want to live in a place like that again. If you and your buddies want to "manifest violence" on me because I believe that the fruits of my labor are my own, so be it. I won't submit to a "your money or your life" proposition. And once you've taken my life and used my money, how will you survive?

    25. Re:Who pays for these websites? by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      The capitalists -- at least the ones who matter -- are the few people who get to wield the power that the capital endows. It is the banker, not the saver, who decides to loan a ton of money to his brother-in-law to build too much office property during a real estate boom.

      So don't invest in a dodgy bank. Don't invest in a bank at all, if you can't find one you trust. Provide a low interest loan to a personal friend you do trust, to help them build their business. Form a neighborhood cooperative to pool investment resources and invest larger sums (thus providing greater control) in investments you all agree are good.

      I expect you probably snickered appreciatively the first time you heard the line about, "Those men in Washington wouldn't be there if they didn't know what they were doing."

      Actually, I'm sure the men in Wasington know what they're doing. I just doubt that what they are doing has much to do with justice or reason or with benefiting the nation, but rather with retaining power.

      I have not noticed any abundance of wisdom among the investment set or their manager priests. Actually, they seem to lead us from one folly to another, rarely learning anything from experience

      So don't follow them. You aren't forced to work for stupid managers. If you're smarter than everyone you're working for, go into business for yourself - you should drive them out of business in no time.

    26. Re:Who pays for these websites? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      > Actually, what I'm saying is that the trend you are talking about

      And I'm saying that that trend hasn't /always/ existed, nor needs to accelerate at the rate that it is currently accelerating. At least under a more cautious state-managed post-war capitalist era, the trend was nearly stopped, and many countries did experience favourable growth of their GDP.

      I mean, seriously, I might as well go around stealing from people and say, "Well, you know, stealing will always happen, so might as well do it." Shit, thats the defining principal of unabated capitalism. That being a bad apple isn't bad, because there are always bad apples. The point is, there doesn't have to be that many.

      > Argentina fell apart because it was a corrupt government with massive cronyism in state-run jobs.

      Maybe it was the influence of the NED (National Endowment of Democracy Fund .. a 'non government' organization that was born out of a CIA scandal that you might know .. the Iran Contra scandal?), known for purposefully destabilizing the ecnomies and political systems of countries with decidedly socialist (but democratic) leaders. Another example of an angle supported by just about everyone in the world but the US, for obvious reasons. :) Hard to believe in when you love it so much, I know, but try.

      > Capitalism. Feudalism. The two are not the same.

      Like duh. Feudalism introduced capitalism, in the form of the privatization of what was, at the time, common land regulated and mandated by the farmers and communities at the time. Abusers of the land before the push by feudalists to privatization were punished by way of public humiliation. Privatization involved the erection of hedges around these lands .. thus, the introduction of what was to become the market based economy began with taking away what was at the time the right of the people living beside such common lands.

      > If you and your buddies want to "manifest violence" on me

      Why would I want to? I don't want to. I don't wish you any harm man. But I'm not the one who might die if I can't afford my next meal, or wants to die, because I work 12 hours a day and can only afford a tiny dingy apartment, food and water. These numbers may or may not be increasing, although I ague that they are, but that doesn't change the fact that if they are increasing, attitudes like yours will ensure you're first up against the wall. Dude, I mean, my parents are part of this group. Me too, probably. I'm not bashing you, I'm only showing you that people are moved to violence when they perceive they have no other choice .. not because they are dumb and don't recognize that if they only got off their lazy asses, they wouldn't have to lop people's heads off. Do you really think poor people just can't figure out that being a lawyer or computer programmer is more fun than joining riots? Nope .. but as long as you keep belittling the poor, and their 'meager' skills and motivation, and then critizing them for not having the drive for self-betterment, they'll always feel forced to believe that violence is the only way. If you can't be convinced to give them a chance, of course they'll take it. I would to, if the numbers were in my favour ....

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    27. Re:Who pays for these websites? by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      > Don't like the IMF's conditions, don't borrow from them

      BTW, so, american companies come into your country (your government lets them in, cause they say they'll be nice). Then they pollute the drinking water. Then they privatize your drinking water. Then you can't afford water. Then the IMF, in bed with these companies, gives you a deal that you can't refuse, not because you don't like the terms, but because millions upon millions of people would die if you don't borrow. BTW, typical third-world IMF interest payments are 30 times the rate that the allies felt was sufficient punishment to Germany, post WWII. I mean, can I come into your house as a guest, take all your food, and then sell it back to you at a rate you can't afford? And then offer to "loan" you money with interest rates that garauntee that unless you can pull off a 4 fold increase in your GDP, you'll never pay off?

      You're very ignorant of the ways of the international scene. I'm no genius, but you lack even a smidgen of a world-view that isn't tainted by your own fishbowl. Go back to your bubble!

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    28. Re:Who pays for these websites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And once you've taken my life and used my money, how will you survive?

      By taking your job.

    29. Re:Who pays for these websites? by Untimely+Ripp'd · · Score: 1

      So don't invest in a dodgy bank. Don't invest in a bank at all, if you can't find one you trust.

      The first problem with this philosophy is that it suggests there is some way to evaluate the quality of the decisions a bank's management is making, prior to its sudden collapse. There isn't.

      The second problem is that it assumes that I can insulate myself from the gigantic social problems caused by bad management on the part of elites. There is nothing I could have done to prevent the trade center attacks, although it was crystal clear to me that there would be a price to pay -- in blood -- for our arrogant and selfish treatment of the rest of the world.

      I just doubt that what they are doing has much to do with justice or reason or with benefiting the nation, but rather with retaining power.

      I would largely agree with you. But I have the same opinion of the wealthy elite managers. It is a rather small fraction of their activity that benefits the rest of us. Most of their activity is deliberately geared towards making our lives worse.

      So don't follow them. You aren't forced to work for stupid managers.

      And I don't -- I'm part-owner of a small consulting business. I still might have to work WITH stupid managers. But again, I'm not talking about the particular circumstances of my life. I'm doing all right. I'm talking about the damage these people do to all of us, with their irresponsible "can do" laissez-faire me-first free-market neo-conservative neo-liberal free-trade globalize clearcut global-warming-needs-more-study yahoo lunacy. I've lost a whole lot of individual liberties in the last 4 months, and the reason I lost them was because some people were really mad at us because we were doing some things we really shouldn't have been doing, didn't need to be doing, and for most of us, weren't benefitting from doing. But we all pay the price.

      Of course it could be worse. It could be World War I. That was modern management at its best. If only all those working class Brits and Frenchmen had quit their jobs and gone into business for themselves, they would not have had to follow their leaders into that bloody obscenity. Right.

      --

      And let the angel whom thou still hast serv'd tell thee ...

  43. Oops! by OldCrasher · · Score: 1

    I think we /.'ed the SEC!
    A new way to bring down Government!

    1. Re:Oops! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Moron. Why don't you look at the other dumbass who posted that lame joke. It is even lamer when you consider that there is no link to the SEC.

  44. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by JordoCrouse · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, if happiness is bliss, and bliss is ignorance, and ignorance is a form of stupidity, then it follows that the Declaration of Independence guarantees your right to be an idiot.

    Who are you to stand in the way of freedom?

    --
    Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
  45. White hat v. Black hat by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is an example where the government entrapment is a good thing. What about the dark side of the force?


    Let the FBI put up sites for child porn, and the requirement for entry into the child porn is submitting your own child porn. Is this entrapment? What about the MPAA doing this with movie downloads?

    1. Re:White hat v. Black hat by sledd_1 · · Score: 1

      ...except they're 'entrapping' people who would otherwise be blowing their money on an internet investing scam, thereby saving them money.

      Someone entrap me the same next time I go car shopping.

      --
      I know a little sig that's just ten words long
    2. Re:White hat v. Black hat by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Tricking someone into acting illegally isn't necessarily entrapment. Otherwise there would be no sting operations. Entrapment requires harassment or continual provocation -- that is, forcing someone into doing something they normally would not.

    3. Re:White hat v. Black hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is completely different for one important reason: in all of those cases, the government or the "trapper" is trying to force the citizen to commit a crime, then arrest him or her. In this case, the SEC is helping save people from fraud by raising awareness. A citizen who signs up to trade at SEC sites is not doing anything illegal, he or she is simply setting himself or herself up to be defrauded.

    4. Re:White hat v. Black hat by legLess · · Score: 5, Informative

      First, this isn't entrapment - they're not going to prosecute people for trying to give money to these fake sites.

      Second, the theoretical FBI tactic you describe sounds very much like entrapment (IANAL), which is very illegal.

      Frankly, I'm amazed and gratified to see a government agency making such good use of the web.

      --
      This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
    5. Re:White hat v. Black hat by Xerithane · · Score: 2, Informative

      Close, it has nothing to do with what they normally would or would not do. Entrapment just means that someone from the law enforcement side coerced an individual into committing a crime that they would not have done without that coercion.

      For example, if you have a drug dealer who ceased dealing and an officer ask for one more deal and the dealer gets busted, it would fall under entrapment. Entrapment also does not require harassment or continual provocation.

      Entrapment is the act of luring an individual into a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act.

      IANAL, but try to keep up on laws :)

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    6. Re:White hat v. Black hat by geekoid · · Score: 2

      entrapment occurs when you "entice" someone to do something they normally wouldn't do. So if they allready have the childporn then they Allready committed the crime.
      No if you where walking down the street minding you own business, and someone walks up to you and says "I have sex with you for 50.00" THAT would be entrapment. which is different then walking up to someona and saying "I'll give you 50.00 for sex"
      this is why you only discuss money on the phone, then just casually leave it on her dresser when you enter the premises, but never ever talk about it in person,and if they try to get you to say something about moany, in person, then clam up, take your money, and get the hell out.

      IANAL, but I've paid for one.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:White hat v. Black hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't entrapment you fool! Entrapment is when you get tricked into doing something illegal and then arrested. This tricks you into doing something stupid and then warns you. Very different...

    8. Re:White hat v. Black hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Teaching people how to successfully use a hooker without getting caught... now that's why I call "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"... ;)

    9. Re:White hat v. Black hat by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the majority of ch1ld p0rn comes from? Surely not the FBI entrapment operations?

    10. Re:White hat v. Black hat by BlowCat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      In fact, the site is rather dumb. It "traps" me too early. Just because I clicked on some links, it don't mean that I "could get scammed". Why cannot I click all links before I use other sources to check if the company is real?

      Only if I entered some personal information on the site and tried to submit it, then I'm likely to be a potential victim. But not before that.

    11. Re:White hat v. Black hat by Kanasta · · Score: 2

      making such good use of the web?

      You realise they probably hired a $200/hr contractor to put up that site, and chose an 'authorized' web host/registrar that cost 5 times more than average.

      And they probably have 10 volumes of documentation on this filed somewhere.

    12. Re:White hat v. Black hat by bagman · · Score: 1

      Actually, entrapment law varies with jurisdiction; different states and the federal system use different standards. If I remember correctly, the standard used in federal criminal prosecutions is that if a defendant "readily accepted" the law enforcement officer's suggestion/request, then there is no entrapment.

    13. Re:White hat v. Black hat by Jebediah21 · · Score: 1

      The sites don't even use cookies (just a waste of time for this purpose). I guess if they wanted to have evidence against you they would at least leave a cookie. Hell, the people who get duped by this would probably grant permission for the page to run a program on their machine (and mark their machine good!).

      --

      Everytime you look at porn a devil gets their horns.
    14. Re:White hat v. Black hat by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Yeah - but that goes into the coercion aspect. If you look what they did with the cocaine dealer from Blow (Forgot his name) that didn't fall under entrapment because they just provided him the means and he took it.

      If an officer tells them to do something, and they do it, it gets a bit gray. The key is whether or not they would do the same activity with or without the officers intervention.

      Either way, afaik, it is seldom used because of the possibility of getting a great lawyer and having the case dismissed. I don't know any feds, only police so I'm going with what they talk about :)

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    15. Re:White hat v. Black hat by ymgve · · Score: 2

      This was exactly what the FBI did in Operation Buccaneer. They set up their own warez sites, got their own people deeply into the scene, then struck.

      By the way, it's not entrapment (AFAIK) because the FBI didn't trick them into anything - they'd still copy software without the 'encouragement' of the FBI.

    16. Re:White hat v. Black hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's well known that the Postal Inspectors and the FBI run all kinds of sting operations to catch trafficers in child pornography. In fact, if you see any advertisment or web site offering child porn it's almost certainly a sting of some sort.

  46. Australian version... by Thornae · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Australian Securities and Investments Commission do a similar thing in print publications. They run
    bogus investment ads, including Geep - the amazing Sheep/Goat hybrid and Jellyfish Farms. The numbers actually put you in contact with ASIC, who'll tell you to be more careful with your money.

    I admit, these are a little easier to spot than the SEC ones...

    --
    |>
    Here be Dragons
    1. Re:Australian version... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact they've done internet-based ones before too.

      Slashdot: News for Merkins. Stuff that's just plain wrong.

    2. Re:Australian version... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But dammit, I want a geep!

  47. Bio-Hazard Alert Detector by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1

    damn this sounds fine! Screw investing, where can I buy one!

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  48. Found another! by blair1q · · Score: 0, Troll

    AMD

    1. Re:Found another! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't forget this one !!!

      ~~~

  49. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

    No, the stock market is of concern to many people who dropped out of their business major course in college to pursue the dotcom bubble, and who now have little money, but are still investing for their future.

  50. Nice by NiftyNews · · Score: 2

    So basically we can all wait for the report, find out which site worked the best, and copy it for our very convincing fraud companies.

    Nothing like having your tax dollars do a little free R&D for the bad guys! ;)

  51. Sooo... by warpSpeed · · Score: 1

    This is like a "honey pot" for investors?

    ~Sean

  52. Here's a great one by jackal! · · Score: 2
    --

    Who moderates the meta-moderators?

  53. New story for /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darn! I was just going to submit this story to Slashdot:

    AC writes: Now, for the first time, McWhortle Enterprises is offering a product to the general public: the new Bio-Hazard Alert Detector. Running quietly on two double-A batteries, the Bio-Hazard Alert Detector emits an audible beep and flashes when in the presence of all known bio-hazards. The Bio-Hazard Alert Detector, measuring only 3 by 7 inches, is small enough to slip into a man's jacket pocket, a woman's purse or a child's backpack. Sounds like a good use of technology in the fight against terrorism!

  54. Legal Representation by Mondrames · · Score: 2

    These sites are represented by the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe.

    1. Re:Legal Representation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also hear that their document security expert is "Euripides Upmann."

    2. Re:Legal Representation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These sites are represented by the law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe.

      Actually, it is Bilkem & Runn.

  55. /.ing the site by John+Harrison · · Score: 2
    By /.ing this site we hurt not only ourselves, but many foolish investors that would otherwise be able to see it and learn!

    I wonder if the SEC anticipated getting /.ed when they estimated how much of a load this site would need to bear. What are their bandwidth costs? Is this /.ing hurting taxpayers?

    1. Re:/.ing the site by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2
      • By /.ing this site we hurt not only ourselves, but many foolish investors that would otherwise be able to see it and learn!
      Unless /.'ers are the intended audience...

      How many of you got in on the VA/RedHat/LInuxONE [kidding] friends & family purchase plan? That's what I mean...

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  56. speaking of stocks for investment.. by Cheetahfeathers · · Score: 1

    We must invest based upon equal amount of ignorance. Should you actually know something good about the company, you are not allowed to invest or tell others to invest. Insider trading is bad, m'kay. You are allowed to use only ignorance and luck; intelligence and knowledge in gambling (stocks) is considered rude and illegal. ;)

    Yeah, I know it's not exactly accurate, but it always struck me as a funny/messed up rule anyway.

    1. Re:speaking of stocks for investment.. by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I know it's not exactly accurate, but it always struck me as a funny/messed up rule anyway.

      Not exactly accurate? How about "more miss than hit."

      It depends upon the source of the information. If the information is publically-available (and a one-column-inch blurb in the Boulder, CO, Daily Camera business section is public enough) then it's perfectly legal.

      The idea is to keep the market fair by (theoretically) giving all investors the same chance at the same information. Now, I don't have the time to read the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, Newspeak, and the Denver Rocky Mountain News every day like my broker does, but that's life. He's a broker and I have no desire to be. And we both have the same access, even if I don't use it.

      Now, let's say that my department were to consider finally buying computers for all 60-odd of our patrol cars. If I knew who the vendor was and bought their stock, it may or may not be legal. If I bought the stock before there was a public announcement, then it wouldn't be legal. If the information was already public, then well and good.

      You're SUPPOSED to use asymmetrical information. You're supposed to know more than the other person. It just can't be insider asymmetrical information.

      Note: IANA(Securities)L. Nor am I an SEC inspector. I don't think I'm actually qualified to be either.

    2. Re:speaking of stocks for investment.. by Cheetahfeathers · · Score: 1

      This artificial notion of 'fair' is stupid. If you have the benefit of additional info that others do not, you should be able to take advantage of that info, no matter the source. This notion of trying to make everyone equal is lame, and ignores the reality that things are NOT fair... trying to make them fair by fixing the game isn't going to make it fair... it just discriminates against those that should be doing the best at the gambling game that is stocks.

      Just like in schools you should give better education to those who show themselves to be smarter... why waste time/materials/etc on people who aren't starting off at the same level as others? You just fill the world with morons who think they deserve equal benefits as others. Protections, yes. Everyone deserves equal protection under the law.. but not benefits.

      It's a broken viewpoint, and it causes problems... the result of the stock gamble being 'equal access' is only one symptom of this viewpoint.

  57. If the rest didn't tip you off, this should.. by MattRog · · Score: 1

    http://mcwhortle.com/mcwbldg.jpg

    Couldn't they have done a better photoshopping job on that 'logo' on the side of the building? Or even better, since this website (like everything in the government) cost around 10X more expensive than it should have been to make I bet they could've afforded a simple 'iron-on' banner to place on the side of the building.

    --

    Thanks,
    --
    Matt
    1. Re:If the rest didn't tip you off, this should.. by justinstreufert · · Score: 1

      Perhaps bad Photoshop work is one of the Signs of Poor Investments in their booklets. ;)

      They might have purposely limited the amount of time they spent on this graphic in order to give people a better chance of not feeling like an idiot once they reached the "You've been Scammed" page.

      Justin

      --
      "Why would God give us a waist if we wasn't supposed to rest our pants on it?" - Rev. Roy McDaniels
    2. Re:If the rest didn't tip you off, this should.. by nologin · · Score: 1

      Or this graphic. Looks like someone got some buttons from a phone but forgot to include the middle column.

      It would really suck if you couldn't input the digits 2,5,8 and 0.

    3. Re:If the rest didn't tip you off, this should.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, this has probably already been covered but...
      Since the purpose of the website is to create a 'shady' web investment company, and the SEC has given you 'clues' in the website that it is shady, isn't it a reasonable assumption that the SEC did the crappy photo-edit on purpose as a possible alarm bell?
      If you are doing one of these 'scam sites' you probably wouldn't have a real building either...

  58. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by SilentChris · · Score: 2
    If you were in a company that fell apart because of a scam, I'm sure you would care.

    Considering the huge amount of money that has been invested in techs the past 10 years, and a reliance on such techs by investors, nerds really should care about this stuff.

  59. whois on SEC by agrounds · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here are the results of the domains owned by the SEC according to the whois database at network solutions:

    WINDHANDEL.COM
    SEC-CIVIL.COM
    SECRECRUITMENT.COM
    SEC-NL.COM
    OPERATIONDESERTFOX.COM
    DOUZALS.COM
    SEC (SE463-ORG) no.valid.email@WORLDNIC.NET 619 487 7988
    MCWHORTLE.COM

    1. Re:whois on SEC by Glorat · · Score: 1
      I decided to visit and notice a page with a hit counter on it;

      Merci d' être le visiteur 7

      Depuis le 14 Juillet 1998 [une révolution n'est-il-pas ?]

      Ok, so maybe this isn't one of them cos the slashdot effect hasn't got there. Oh, oops, sorry...

    2. Re:whois on SEC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but you can only get 10 with their gui. Gotta issue a whois from a *nix box to get 50+

    3. Re:whois on SEC by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Windhandel is Dutch for wind trading, like they say on the site itself. In The Netherlands, the word 'windhandel' has a negative connotation for having to do with fraudulent business.

      The title of the page is 'dot com biz card', which is pretty thick on the theme, if you ask me.

      It's a pretty bad weapon in this War on Stupidity, as it was called here in this thread.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    4. Re:whois on SEC by morcego · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.
      The result of a simple query for "SEC" will be of no use. Just check these domains and you will find out.

      --
      morcego
    5. Re:whois on SEC by j7953 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      DOUZALS.COM

      Stop, don't slashdot that poor server. Since July 14, 1998, they've only handled 52 hits, and counting (counting quite fast, actually).

      And they're not the Securities and Exchange Commission but "La Société Informatique SEC [Service Enseignement Conception]"

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    6. Re:whois on SEC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The count stands at 138 now (including my hit). :-)

    7. Re:whois on SEC by morie · · Score: 1

      Windhandel is dutch for "trading in something that does not exist". Interesting choice.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
  60. He's o.g. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or1g1n4l gr33nsp4n.

    Werd, motherbitches. Alan Greenspan owns the SEC, your bedroom, your momma.

    There must be somethin in the water, cuz all I see are venture capitalists!

    I swear to Bob, Alan Greenspan is the coolest person currently alive right now.

  61. FUCKING WHINNER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get over it, already.

    1. Re:FUCKING WHINNER by devleopard · · Score: 1

      I wasn't whining. You'll notice that this was at the end of my post: :-)

      While most individuals with the faintest resemblance to knowledge about the Internet would recogzine what this means, my experience from when I worked an ISP help desk tells me that there are many newbies on the Internet who recently purchased a 'puter and still require the proper education. That symbol is what we call an "emoticon". That means that it expresses emotions that cannot otherwise be expressed via ASCII text (more on what ASCII means in the next lesson). The particular set of characters I used represent a "smiley", indicating humor or "no big deal". For more explanation, please visit: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gc i212057,00.html

      --
      The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
  62. Is this really such a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These sites are put up by the SEC, in order to show, I assume, what a con site would look like. Does this not give the less crafty cons out there some ideas on how to write their own REAL con sites?

  63. Here's one... by bahtama · · Score: 2

    Seems they haven't even configured some of them yet. ;) http://seek2succeed.com/

    --

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    Oh bother.

    1. Re:Here's one... by bahtama · · Score: 2
      Since it seems to have gone away already...

      Registrant:
      SEC (SEEK2SUCCEED-DOM)
      6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
      ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
      US


      Domain Name: SEEK2SUCCEED.COM

      Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
      SEC (VMGSFHPWCO) webmaster@mcwhortle.com
      SEC
      6432 GENERAL GREEN WAY
      ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
      US
      202 824 5151 fax: 202 504 2477

      --

      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
      Oh bother.

  64. Like the lottery by F.O.Dobbs · · Score: 1

    Like the lottery, it's a tax on people who think they can get something for nothing or aren't good at math. I think the SEC's fake websites should solicit money, then use the money to pay for public service announcements telling people about online scams, and they have a list of people who need more education (talk about a targetted demographic). A fool and his money are easily parted, but at least we can educate the fool.

  65. Talk to the checkbox! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Then don't waste your time and ours by bitching about it, when you should be ignoring it instead.

    EDIT YOUR SLASHDOT USER PROFILE AND DISABLE THE TOPIC!

    Talk the the checkbox!

    Clue: Check the box by the topic "The Almighty Buck". Then go away and stop posting on this topic.

    Clue #2: You are wrong in your assumption that most other people are just like you.

    1. Re:Talk to the checkbox! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome back slashdot-terminal! Now shut up.

  66. 6 Degrees of Fraud? by penguin_dance · · Score: 2, Funny
    Perhaps this is one being referenced here:

    "http://www.lovecalculator.com This site is a fraud! Don't use it! You'll only become disenchanted! The only person that everyone---I mean EVERYONE---has a 100% chance with is Kevin Bacon. Yeah, I know...RUN!"

    SEC must be stooping pretty low!

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    1. Re:6 Degrees of Fraud? by kilroy_hau · · Score: 1

      Well, not everyone...
      there is somebody who has a 42% chance.

      --


      Kilroy was here!
  67. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by Malc · · Score: 1

    YOU might not care about financial matters, but many do. This forum appeals to people with many different interests. There's no single definition of what constitutes a computer geek, so please don't assume your likes and dislikes are the same as everybody elses.

    I personally find this quite interesting... and not from a financial angle. This is an example of the goverment trying to use the very technology that can hurt it's citizens to educate them!

  68. why it's important for a computer geek by ackthpt · · Score: 2
    Maybe if they'd do this with spam, they could put a dent in it by rounding up all the morons who fall for it and send them directions to free classes on how not to be a sap.

    I'm sure, with all the money spent chasing down the scammers, an education program like this would slash the costs, and hopefully make spamming less attractive o-> with the desirable result, less spam! =-)

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:why it's important for a computer geek by _typo · · Score: 2, Offtopic
      Maybe if they'd do this with spam, they could put a dent in it by rounding up all the morons who fall for it

      We need to round up all the sysadmins who setup mail servers as open relays. The morons that believe the stuff that comes in spam are less important.

      --

      Pedro Côrte-Real.

    2. Re:why it's important for a computer geek by aka-ed · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Maybe if they'd do this with spam...

      Hold on. Are you actually proposing that the government should festoon everyone's mb with fake "Get Rich Quick" offers in order to "educate" us about fake "Get Rich Quick" offers?

      The web site idea already strikes me as more "Internet litter" than anything useful. Habitual saps will be habitual saps, and many of them already know that. This is a class of people that will, upon learning that the SEC site is a fake, feel crestfallen at the loss of an opportunity, and then immediately resume their search for someone who can take their money. It's more a matter of self-esteem than ignorance, IMO.

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    3. Re:why it's important for a computer geek by Coz · · Score: 1

      Do you really want Your Tax Dollars sending you spam?

      --
      I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
    4. Re:why it's important for a computer geek by ackthpt · · Score: 2
      Do you really want Your Tax Dollars sending you spam?

      My tax dollars have been spent worse ways.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  69. Sounds cool... by macdaddy · · Score: 2

    ...as long as they don't resort to spamming to advertise their fake sites. I'd have to LART them if they did.

    1. Re:Sounds cool... by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Forward their spam to uce@ftc.gov. A lot of my spam gets copied to spamcop and to the FTC. The FTC just gets MLMs, credit card auth scams and other business-related spam.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  70. Here's one way to find them: by perlchimp · · Score: 1

    Search google for phrases on the mcwhortle page.

    like this

    Some of the sites have been indexed.

  71. I found another one! by WillSeattle · · Score: 1

    It's here.

    The funny thing, is it's based on Enron's model.

    -

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
  72. Brokers are morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most brokers don't know squat. My boss (who sold his companies for $18 million) has to argue with his Meryll Lynch broker about why it's a good idea to dump his stocks that have losses to offset his gains on other sells. Pathetic.

  73. Slashdot the next target? by TClevenger · · Score: 1

    I wonder how long before the SEC realizes that 99% of it's "duped" investors were referred from Slashdot. CmdrTaco may be getting a little visit... :-)

  74. SEC should start "Get a Clue Quick" Pyramid Scheme by SimHacker · · Score: 2
    The SEC should enlist all those bozos who reply to Get Rich Quick spams, by starting their own pyramid scheme just to teach people not to respond to Get Rich Quick spams.

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
  75. OT - your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My favorite response to the Monkey quote (especally in regards to Windows) is:

    Nah - 30 monkeys, four hours. Tops.

  76. Today's Lunch by LunchLady · · Score: 0

    For lunch today I had a Spicy Chicken Combo (#6) from Wendy's. For my drink selection I choose Diet Coke - being that I am a caffeine junkie - the 0 calories does me well - it help me not turn into a overweight 'I love linux' junkie.

  77. Is it live or is it SEC? by WillSeattle · · Score: 1

    Slashdotting the SEC's just gotta violate some law...

    Not really. Now they can tell the news media how many page hits they got from interested investors.

    Just think of the positive publicity!

    -

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
    1. Re:Is it live or is it SEC? by d-e-w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Given that it's been reported on sites like CNN as well, pulling in rubberneckers who are techy and not, SEC is probably not counting on much beyond the curiosity factor with this particular site. Searchs by slashdotters may through off stats on other sites today, but that's probably an expected outlier as well--we are not the only ones to like challenges, and announcing that you've got sites like this out there is tantamount to declaring a challenge.

      Immediate "news-worthy" benefits had already been generated by this site prior to its mentions on news sites. Hopefully ongoing benefits (people who are little more clued in about internet scams) will be generated by other of their fake sites. SEC did throw this one away--at least for now--by using it as the basis for a press release.

    2. Re:Is it live or is it SEC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd pay money to see the faces of the people who actually fell for the McWhortle site when they read the SEC press release :)

  78. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by i7dude · · Score: 1

    "And could someone please tell me why it's important for a computer geek (who most likely) dosn't really care about financial matters?"

    once i graduated from college i learned very quickly that the only thing that drives our society is money...this is a sad fact, but one that must be accepted if we have any expectations for living decent lives in a capitalistic society. financial issues cannot and should not be avoided especially if one has any deisre to own a car or house, provide for a family, or even create a decent pension. making the choice to not care about such matters will, for the majority of people, put one in a severly disadvantged position later in life...becoming a drain on the economy and the rest of us who do care.

    dude.

  79. Lottery by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 2

    Are movies a tax on people who aren't good at math? What about books? The lottery is escapist entertainment. And at a dollar a ticket, it's a better value than a movie. And with the dreck churned out of Hollywood, you have a better chance of winning $100 million than seeing a good flick.

    1. Re:Lottery by maddman75 · · Score: 1

      No - not the same thing at all. Most people do NOT play the lottery for entertainment value. They play because they want to be rich, and 'somebody has to win' What they don't realize is that the chance of winning is so small that buying a ticket does not signifigantly increase your odds of winning :).

      The truth is that you are better off sticking that dollar into a slot machine, as terrible as those odds are. Hell, I'm about as likely to find buried pirate treasure in my back yard as I am to win the lottery, even if I play every week.

      I used to play a lot, especially the scratch off kind. Until I took a class in statistics. Properly educated, they were no longer enticing, as there was no real hope of making money.

      So yes, they are a tax on people who are bad at math.

      --
      -- When a fool hears of the Tao, he will laugh out loud.
    2. Re:Lottery by geekoid · · Score: 2

      how do you figure? If I by a movie ticket, I gete something Viewing the movie. If I buy a lottery ticket, I will have a 1:100000 chance of getting ANYTHING at all in return.Thats anything, not just the big payout.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - not the same thing at all. Most people do NOT play the lottery for entertainment value.

      Sure they do. Lottery players are drug addicts - adrenaline.

    4. Re:Lottery by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      'somebody has to win'

      I've always thought of this ad campaign as vaguely deceptive. There are plenty of examples where several months will pass without a winner. Seems that those millions of tickets don't count somehow.

  80. Another truthful post modded to troll status by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Way to say it, bruthah. Maybe the dearth of posts is because all of the interesting posters have been IP banned.

    The IP ban is slash-leech's own form of CENSORSHIP. Even your truthful and insightful post has been modded to troll status, because it does not tow the line. Note, you are not "offtopic", but a "troll". Why? Because you don't sing the praises of slashditz to the high heavens. Soon, you too will be censored via IP banning.

    Slashdot is still the stupidest, leechiest site in the web, with "stories" posted by two bit hacks and leeches who can't come up with their own original content to save their sorry butts. This is the only place in the world where a 4 paragraph "review" of a video game passes for legitimate content. Pathetic!

    Good luck slashidiots, you're going to need it when this site collapses and you have to find work in the real world. I just pray to g*d that I'm still here to see it happen.

  81. POOR SPEELLER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell is a whinner?

  82. moderation system is rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative
    once regular users found out the moderation system is rigged, they left because even the lamest user realizes the system is totally editor-controlled, and any "user-regulation" is irrelevant. i know i am reading and posting much more infrequently after taco admits editors moderate (8%!!!) and there are no plans to change this.

    we are just puppets for the editors.

  83. Why waste time with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like we really need the SEC putting up investment scams and hoping we find them. I get half a dozen investment fraud websites showing up in my email every day, which I dutifully report to the SEC. If they want you to see what a fraudulent stock scam looks like, why don't they just advertise the thousands that are already out there that they know about?

  84. Fake news release? by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION · · Score: 1
    On Friday, the SEC issued a fake news release on behalf of McWhortle, saying the company would go public Wednesday, with company President Thomas McWhortle III holding a news conference at SEC headquarters. The release was distributed mainly to Web sites by a service for financial news. Financial news agencies that received the fake release were warned.


    Financial Web sites posted information they knew to be false? Presumably, after the trap was sprung on clueless investors, you'd think they would look elsewhere for their financial information.

  85. -ac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When's the next Anal Cox -ac kernel coming out?

  86. Bravo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government is helping the man. What I have to wonder here is what happens when someone with enough time on their hands really put this to the test. Not one fake website but many, all tied together to propagate the lie. Sort of a way to spread disinformation.

  87. Now if only other agencies would follow suit... by bani · · Score: 2

    I wish the FDA would do the same with "alternative medicine" sites.

    The FDA should seed the web with "herbal viagra", "super blue green algae", etc sites, then slap mofo's upside the head when they are stupid enough to actually try ordering.

    1. Re:Now if only other agencies would follow suit... by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      Hey, quit dissin' alt medicine. I lost 40 pounds on THIS plan.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:Now if only other agencies would follow suit... by bani · · Score: 2

      "NordiCaLite is a trademark of Ümlaut Industries, Ltd."

      Who says the feds dont have a sense of humour?

  88. I quit submitting stories long ago by FreeUser · · Score: 3, Offtopic

    I submitted this on Monday (I mentioned it on my website) I was logged in, not anonymous. So much for logged in users taking precedence over anonymous users :-)

    I quit submitting stories to slashdot years ago, when similar things would happen. The submission process is straightforward enough, but the editorial process is about as transparent as crude oil on a moonless night. Who knows why stories get rejected one day, resubmitted and accepted another, with the latecommer getting the credit. Who knows why a site which purports to be pro free software/open source/whatever dumps stories of technical interest in favor of promotions ... excuse me ... reviews of media releases (DVDs) and movies that encourage free software enthusiasts to go out and put money in the pockets of an industry bent on hamstringing the internet and legislating free software (and the tools to make it) out of existence.

    I gave up trying to figure this out years ago, and now content myself to just reading whatever interesting stuff happens to make it through the filter, and posting an occasional diatribe or two.

    I recommend anyone discontent with this sort of thing to do the same. It will entail much less frustration and heartache for you, and if enough people do it perhaps the editors will take the hint and become more fair in how they select stories and attribute them. In the meantime, life is too short, so don't let this sort of irritation get to you.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:I quit submitting stories long ago by d-e-w · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I gave up trying to figure this out years ago, and now content myself to just reading whatever
      interesting stuff happens to make it through the filter, and posting an occasional diatribe or two.


      The reasoning (or lack there of) behind what stories get accepted or rejected from Slashdot is not actually all that hard to understand. Like anything in PR, it's a crapshoot.

      Here are my views (I always submit as AC, due to some particular personal reasons, but have a fairly decent acceptance rate.)

      Submitting a story to Slashdot involves creating a mini press release. You are promoting your "version" of the story, so that it gets chosen over all other "versions." Creating an effective press release is frickin' hard. I've seen cases in which a 2-page, double-spaced press release took two-three weeks to produce.

      As with any press release, you increase your chances by focusing on certain aspects.

      1. Engaging language. You are selling your summary to the editor who reviews it. They probably go through dozens of submissions a day, and yours has to catch their eye and engage their attention.

      2. Interesting topic, which could give rise to a ongoing discussion. When looking back on most of my failed submissions, they did not meet #2. If it is interesting, but probably won't create much of a discussion, it is worthless for Slashdot's purposes. This is not a news site, it is a discussion site. Even if you believe it would generate a discussion, posing a jumping off point for that discussion increases your chances.

      But still, things will be rejected, as thousands of press releases around the world are thrown into thousands of trash cans every day. Other versions of the same thing may be accepted because the language/discussion points appeal more to the editor who reviews it. This can be a problem at times, because an incorrect and more controversial version which provides a jumping off point for argument will probably be accepted over a summary which is technically correct and dry. But this is not a problem with this site alone--it is a problem throughout the news world. Where do you think that the news sites get some of their incorrect yet controversial information about technical issues? Badly written press releases whose information may be incorrect, but has the "gotcha" factor.

      And there's always the editor factor. Maybe editor A couldn't give a damn about the subject and rejected submission A because it didn't interest him. Then submission B comes around a day later and is reviewed by editor B, who loves the information provided. Therefore, B is accepted over A. This too, is not a problem limited to this news site. Once more than one person is involved consistancy goes straight out the window, no matter how hard you strive for it.

      Submitting to Slashdot is a crapshoot. There are ways that you can improve your odds, but if your summary is reviewed by an editor who believes it is uninteresting, or believes it will not stimulate discussion, it gets rejected.

    2. Re:I quit submitting stories long ago by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I here you, for me it was a much harder process to get away from because my first couple of submissions where taken. Kind og like walking into a casino for the first time and winning a bunch of money. "I can't loose"

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:I quit submitting stories long ago by LoseNotLooseGuy · · Score: 1

      Kind og like walking into a casino for the first time and winning a bunch of money. "I can't loose"

      Judging from context, I suspect that you did not mean to say, "I can't 'let loose or release'." Perhaps the word you were looking for was lose.

      Congratulations! You have been participant #11 in my campaign to rid Slashdot of this error. (Certainly there are other issues with your post, but they fall outside the scope of my duties as LoseNotLooseGuy.)

      --
      Proudly correcting Slashdot's most irritating linguistic error since 2002.
    4. Re:I quit submitting stories long ago by Sarcazmo · · Score: 1

      You're a loose cannon man. You are going to lose it young if you keep loosing such scathing attacks against the Slashdot population. Maybe I am just a loser, but playing fast and loose with the already loose moderation guidelines seems to be the loser thing to do.

    5. Re:I quit submitting stories long ago by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Is your sidekick ThenOrThanBoy? And if that spot isn't taken, can I have it?

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    6. Re:I quit submitting stories long ago by LoseNotLooseGuy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Every good superhero does need a sidekick. Yes, I would welcome your assistance in cleansing Slashdot from the perils of grammatical evil.

      In the meantime, you have been counted amongst the supporters of the Cause.

      --
      Proudly correcting Slashdot's most irritating linguistic error since 2002.
    7. Re:I quit submitting stories long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I nominate the infamous Mr Noone for role of sidekick. You would think that no one with even a 6th grade English education would make that mistake, but it has got to be more common than LoseNotLoose.

    8. Re:I quit submitting stories long ago by mliu · · Score: 2, Offtopic

      Yes, what you say is all true, and the day when I realized this was also the day that I stopped submitting stories. This whole 'gotta-catch-the-attention-of-the-editor' thing is really pathetic considering that we're doing them a favor by submitting, not the other way around. I used to submit stories because I wanted to help make Slashdot a better place. It's clear that they've got more than enough help already considering the way they will ignore good submissions simply because they don't like the write up with them (It's not like they could add their own write-up anyways or anything).

      So I guess the thing really is, I could give a damn whether or not they post my stupid submission or not. But when I have found something that I know will be of genuine interest to the rest of the geek audience out there on Slashdot, and I thoughtfully take the time out of my day to send the URL the way of the Slashdot editors, the last thing I need is to be treated like they're doing me a favor should they choose to take the time to read my submission and post it.....

    9. Re:I quit submitting stories long ago by Dogcow · · Score: 1

      Sounds like how Linux Kernel development operates....

      Everyone keeps sending patches until Linus just gives up and puts em in to shut people up.

      *cough*reiserfs*cough*

  89. Re:Random Walks by sudama · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's just a 1x1 gif from the Xtreme tracker service.

    Boo!

    --
    -- Adam
  90. It will never work by tiltowait · · Score: 1
  91. Spam too? by Sosarian · · Score: 1

    Are they going to spam everyone on the internet to attract interest as well?

  92. One problem: More government lies. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    I have a problem with this. The U.S. government is, once again, lying. People need to be able to trust their government, but the government engages in every kind of behavior that it calls criminal.

    For a small collection of U.S. government lies and misleading behavior, see this collection of links I put together: What should be the Response to Violence?

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
    1. Re:One problem: More government lies. by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I have a problem with this. The U.S. government is, once again, lying. People need to be able to trust their government, but the government engages in every kind of behavior that it calls criminal.

      So, the government can't pretend to be a non-existent company for the purpose of educating people?

      Do you also oppose sting operations? Reverse stings? Should I not be allowed to bluff confessions out of rape suspects? ("We found a beer bottle at the scene with a very interesting fingerprint...")

      So object lessons aren't to be allowed anymore?

      And lying isn't necessarily criminal. Not all statements fall under perjury/false swearing statutes, truth-in-advertising laws, or mandated-disclosure. It's not like the SEC is accepting money at this site, gundecking an Environmental Impact Statement, issuing a buy advisory for Enron, or claiming to be Marie of Rumania under oath.

  93. Gull Awards by stylewagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The ASIC - Australia's equivalent to the SEC - has been runnning bogus internet scams of their own for a while now. They even have awards for the best (or worst depending on your viewpoint) scams found - The Gull Awards (past winners)

    Thats Gull as in Gullible.

    --

    *** I am the real stylewagon

  94. Who pays for the site and hosting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me scratches head while looking at 1040.

    Meanwhile is appears that Reaganitis has spread through the Whitehouse once more.... Enron who!!..I do not recall Enron.

  95. Re:Looks like a lot of the Spam I've been getting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I am strongly convinced that a majority of Americans are completely braindead.

    Yep.

  96. Other Investing Schemes Also SEC Hoaxes? by hotgrits · · Score: 1

    So all this time the "MAKE MONEY FAST!!!" spam was just an SEC hoax? Whodathunkit?

  97. They missed one... by bnenning · · Score: 2
    if people manage to overlook or ignore those issues and attempt to invest money, informs them that they have made an unwise decision.


    While this is a fine idea, they really need to put similar warnings on the Social Security web site.

    --
    How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
  98. Why bother? by JThaddeus · · Score: 1

    So this is what my tax dollars went to vs. stopping Enron before it was too late. SIGH! Besides, I always heard that it was a sin to let a fool keep his money.

    --
    "Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
    1. Re:Why bother? by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Well, we would have stopped them, but they were busy writing our energy policy and that just would have been, y'know, a little impolite or something? Not to mention embarrassing if it gets out that we got all these ideas for running the country from a bunch of guys who couldn't even run a successful business in a deregulated market. We've got better manners than that here in Texas, don'tya know.

      - W

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    2. Re:Why bother? by clarkgoble · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come on, if Slashdotters decided energy policy it would be based on the original "Napster" business model. Come to think of it, perhaps that wasn't that different from what Enron did.

    3. Re:Why bother? by shyster · · Score: 2
      Come on, if Slashdotters decided energy policy it would be based on the original "Napster" business model. Come to think of it, perhaps that wasn't that different from what Enron did.

      Enron's business model was fine (treat energy (among other things) as a commodity to be traded and sold), it was their accounting practices that caused the trouble. Many corporations have debt (see: Amazon.com), they just don't try to hide it as much as Enron did. Note that almost all corporations engage in creative accounting practives (known as window-dressing) to make themselves look better...but Enron went a bit further than that.

      Oh yeah...and Enron basically laundered money to avoid paying taxes. And then that whole 401k debacle.

    4. Re:Why bother? by ahde · · Score: 2

      Um... GE wrote our energy policy.

      Before the California power shortage, they supplied the power for half the country -- the eastern half. Now, thanks to that travesty, General Electric (DBA California Edison) gets bailed out by the state, watches their western competition (PGE) go bankrupt, and gets a virtual monopoly with locked in rEdiculous prices and laws that say they can gouge the public. They have their sights turned on Bonneville which has the Northwest locked up (all those free power dams), which is still nominally "owned" by the Federal Government, who, with Enron as broker, made a fortune on the artificially imposed "spot market".

      Enron collapsed when the California power shortage magically disappeared because they weren't making 1000% profits anymore.

    5. Re:Why bother? by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Um, if the business model was fine, then why did they have to have to use questionable accounting practices (to hide the massive debt)? Maybe to cover the fact that the business model was a load of bull wank in the first place? Maybe they could have tried to sell bottled linux geek farts.

    6. Re:Why bother? by shyster · · Score: 2
      Um, if the business model was fine, then why did they have to have to use questionable accounting practices (to hide the massive debt)? Maybe to cover the fact that the business model was a load of bull wank in the first place? Maybe they could have tried to sell bottled linux geek farts.

      No, there was, and isn't, anything wrong with their basic business model. I actuallt have a client (Florida Gas Utilities) that does very well doing the same thing...albeit on a smaller scale.

      Enron was a bit ambitous after the success of their trading in energy markets, however. They got into broadband, telephone, and some other markets. And just becasue you have debt doesn't necessarily mean that the plan is flawed. Most companies start out with debt, then go into debt further to expand, advertise, etc., and continually have debt. Just like you and me (think mortgage, credit cards, and car loan), it's difficult for a company to survive and make a profit without carrying debt.

      Was Enron's debt too high? Yes, it was...but not, AFAIK, as a result of their busines plan. More than likely, bad management is the culprit. And trying to expand a bit too much a bit too fast.

      And I'm sure there's some trolls out there who would love to buy your farts.

  99. Re: different story by CMiYC · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Erm. I dunno,I think you're walking on the edge of a bomb with that one. I'm for the camp that I don't give a fuck if that's entrapment. If you're willing to submit child porn to anyone (thus proving you're sick enough to have it) you deserve whatever happens to you. But that's just my opinion. If this is entrapment then I, for one, don't care in this case. Entrap every single one of them. Then cut their nuts off.

  100. Not too cool by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From their investment page.


    To bid on these shares, you must quickly e-mail us the number of shares you wish to purchase, together with your major credit card number and social security number (for identification) so we can reserve your slot.


    Thanks, SEC! Now I now where to listen for plain text emails containing social security card and credit numbers. So perhaps you are teaching people a lesson, but who's gonna pay when they become real victims of identity and credit card theft?


    The way they are handling this is just as irresponsible as the people who would actually email sensitive information.

    --

    No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

  101. actually the First Clue is... by TechnoLust · · Score: 1
    It can detect even the finest-milled, weapons-grade biohazards from 50 feet, long before the risk of inhalation or cutaneous infection, by testing for the distinctive surface leptins.

    Hmm, if there are enough in the air for this imaginary device to detect, then wouldn't I be breathing them in? Especially if it is in a "woman's purse, or a child's backpack."

    --
    "Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
    1. Re:actually the First Clue is... by Eccles · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm, if there are enough in the air for this imaginary device to detect, then wouldn't I be breathing them in?

      Yes, but surface leptins are not hazardous even when inhaled (at least at typical doses). You need to inhale at least one entire bactirium or virus to get infected. The McWhortle leptinate detector thus detects the harmful materials before they can harm you.

      Send $10 for a prospectus, or $100 for a distributor's kit, to:
      McWhortle Industries
      c/o I. P. Daily
      123 Easy Street
      Anytown USA 33333

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  102. So many too choose from... by kick_in_the_eye · · Score: 1

    I didn't know the government was into pr0n with all thos SECs sites.

  103. Irony by mallo · · Score: 1

    Is there any irony in the SEC using an open source OS to host a fictitious company's web site?

  104. Global Crossing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Global Crossing
    DNC head Terry McAuliffe turned a $100,000 stock investment into $18,000,000! Now you can too!
    George Bush Sr. agreed to take shares in lieu of an $80,000 speaking fee. At it's high, the stock was worth more than $14,000,000! Invest NOW to get on the gravy train!

  105. list of FTC teaser sites by dajr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.wemarket4u.net/
    Yes, really. Domain is registered to the federal trade commission.

  106. Well Done by KingKire64 · · Score: 1

    I typed in the phone number they gave out on the site on google and it pointed me to a finacial articial on yahoo. Is yahoo in conhoots with the SEC?

    --
    "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
    1. Re:Well Done by dpreviti · · Score: 1

      Don't know about Yahoo being in cahoots, but I'm in DC and tryed the number. It put me into a VMB for an unamed investment couseler.

  107. Mcwhortle.com hosted on C64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must be since, it's Slashdotted already.

    Now the SEC is going to review the logs and see ALL this traffic and panic. I can see the CNN headline now:

    The SEC today anounced that, even it was amazed and alarmed by the amount of people seemingly willing to invest in obvious scams. They stated that fraudulent investment scams on the internet were a known problem but, that they had no idea how many moronic investors were out there willing to invest. Especially in light of the present economy.

    The Whitehouse has tasked the SEC with developing a $10Billion program to educate and warn nit wit investors.

    Film at eleven.

  108. Oops by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    guess I should have looked for the email link first. You can't actually email them your information - because when you get to the next page they identify themselves.


    Need. More. Sleep. Ignore parent post.

    --

    No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

  109. Now, that's funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .
    .

  110. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by bluGill · · Score: 3

    only thing that drives our society is money.

    don't be such a cynic. Just because comptuer geeks never find it doesn't mean there isn't anything more. There are a few people in the real world who have found love, and that drives them to things that money doesn't,

    Saddly, as a comptuer geek I can note the existance of this phenomenon, but cannot accually participate. I also note that most who claim to have found it realise in 10 years that they have not. Still there are exceptions.

  111. All your scams are belong to us! by SimHacker · · Score: 1, Troll
    You can see the text jaggies in the "mcwhortle" logo on the image of the building.

    Government photo forgers: next time use antialiased text, or at least forge the pictures at a higher resolution, then scale it down to a smaller size to get rid of the seams and jaggies.

    Other than that, it's a great anti-scam!

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    1. Re:All your scams are belong to us! by doconnor · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the sloppy image is supposed to be one of the hints that it a fake site.

    2. Re:All your scams are belong to us! by Danse · · Score: 2

      Well, if you're gonna slap 'em upside the head with an obvious forgery, what's the point of the site? They should make them at least competent. Those are the kinds of sites that you really need to watch out for.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    3. Re:All your scams are belong to us! by peccary · · Score: 2

      The perspective is f'd up, too.
      The photo is taken at an angle to the building, so the lines aren't square, but the logo is.

    4. Re:All your scams are belong to us! by gss · · Score: 1

      I don't know, giving the picture a quick glance you probably wouldn't notice it. People dumb enough to fall for one of these scams certainly wouldn't notice.

    5. Re:All your scams are belong to us! by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      Well, fix it up if you know how, and submit the result! If you're an American, think of it as volunteering for your country.

      -Paul Komarek

  112. The FDA does have phony medical sites by Animats · · Score: 2

    The FDA and FTC do have some phony medical sites up. When you get to the "order page", you'll get a Government warning instead. Can you find them?

  113. You want funny? by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Just looking over the 'investor relations' page. Looks like they recently changed their stock symbol.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:You want funny? by EisPick · · Score: 3, Informative

      Looks like they recently changed their stock symbol

      That's because they got kicked off the NYSE. Only NYSE stocks have ticker symbols of 3 or fewer characters. As an OTC stock, they had to pick a new symbol.

    2. Re:You want funny? by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      From that page... "Enron markets electricity and natural gas, delivers energy and other physical commodities, and provides financial and risk management services to customers around the world."

      Quality financial risk management services, eh?

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    3. Re:You want funny? by mmontour · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's because they got kicked off the NYSE. Only NYSE stocks have ticker symbols of 3 or fewer characters. As an OTC stock, they had to pick a new symbol.

      They (ENRNQ) only got to pick the first 4 letters of their symbol - the "Q" suffix indicates the company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings. There's a table of codes here if anyone's interested.

    4. Re:You want funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They (ENRNQ) only got to pick the first 4 letters of their symbol - the "Q" suffix indicates the company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings. There's a table of codes here [fool.com] if anyone's interested.

      Oh, that explains the technology stock exchange's name "NASDAQ"...

  114. How about a fake election scam? by SimHacker · · Score: 3, Insightful
    When you turn in your butterfly ballot with a vote for George W. Bush, it's rejected and you get a note back saying:

    "You just accidentally voted for George W Bush! That was extremely foolish. But it doesn't matter because the outcome of the election is up to Enron and the Supreme Court."

    -Don

    --
    Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    1. Re:How about a fake election scam? by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      Or if you turn in your ballot for Al Gore, it's rejected and the note says:

      "Sorry, but a majority of the Supreme Court can actually read the Constitution, and all the ambulance-chasing lawyers in the world can't change that fact."

      By the way, I wonder how his restaurant is doing.

  115. bad HTML is a giveaway by option8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    any site that fails to use a BGCOLOR tags in its body definition immediately comes under suspicion. i browse using netscape, and the default background color for undefined pages is "Netscape Grey" and not white, as it is under explorer.

    as soon as i see graphics with white halos hovering on a grey background, i know the site is run by an inexperienced webmaster, and any information on the site is likely fraudulent.

    take, for example, Slashdot's light mode...

    1. Re:bad HTML is a giveaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      as soon as i see graphics with white halos hovering on a grey background, i know the site is run by an inexperienced webmaster, and any information on the site is likely fraudulent.
      As soon as I hear people complaining about their browser looking the way its maker intended instead of customizing its settings to make it look better, I think, "There's an idiot".
    2. Re:bad HTML is a giveaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BGCOLOR attribute has been obsolete for years. If you actually cared about standards, you'd use Cascading Style Sheets and prefer that other sites do the same.

    3. Re:bad HTML is a giveaway by QuMa · · Score: 1

      All the absence of a BGCOLOR tag says is: This site is made on the basis of content, not looks, and so does not require a specific background colour, customise to your own needs/likes.

    4. Re:bad HTML is a giveaway by QuMa · · Score: 1

      s/tag/attribute/. D'oh.

    5. Re:bad HTML is a giveaway by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Actually, a MAJOR attraction of Slashdot Lite-mode is the grey background in Netscape. Much easier on the aging eyes than white. And some sites don't use a BGCOLOR because they use a background image that contrasts with their default print colour, but if a background colour were defined, the print would disappear for people who don't load images.

      That aside, the HTML looked like parody-style right off to me, but I ain't no web-newbie.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    6. Re:bad HTML is a giveaway by option8 · · Score: 2

      yeesh. you people obviosly fail to see my poor attempt at humor here.

      the implication, obviously, is that the slashdot light mode should have a bgcolor of white set, so its graphics don't all have white halos, and that since it looks rather unprofessional, that the information i find on the site is therefore unreliable.

      sure, it's not obvious humor, but wake up and smell the irony.

  116. Slashtard Bingo! by grytpype · · Score: 2

    Offtopic gripe about evil copyright-holding corporation!

    --

    - Have a picture

  117. Altered image... by ambient · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else notice that the device on the main page for McWhortle actually has a telephone keypad, minus the center column?

    If you look closely, you can see what is written on the keys: 1, 3def, 4ghi, 6mno etc.

    So do you think they did that on purpose as a warning sign? Or was someone just lazy when they were using PhotoShop?

    I'm bored at work, as you can probably tell... :o)

  118. SEC's own list of their "teaser pages" by Takeel · · Score: 3, Informative
    The SEC appears to have a list of past investment "teaser pages," complete with page hit statistics, at this url:

    http://www.wemarket4u.net/

    It looks like they've been doing this for around two years now.

    1. Re:SEC's own list of their "teaser pages" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neat, it has page views. With the Slashdot effect, we can make McWhortle #1!

  119. SEC $ spent... by jeff13 · · Score: 1

    This is what the SEC spends it's money on? How about arresting thieves from Enron for a change? Don't say they didn't know, they did, they do, they are. Don't be fooled.

  120. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by i7dude · · Score: 1

    i understand where you are coming from, and i definately agree with you. however, i feel my point was missed. you see, i'm talking about the understanding of financial matters and money as they relate to the capitalistic society in which we live. this is in no way related to the individual. money is the last thing which individual happiness should be based on, the are many more important things like love, family, health, knowledge...etc. however, the framwork of our society (which is composed of millions of individuals) is driven primairly by money. there is nothing cynical about that, its fact. being able to function in society and provide oneself the ability to care for the ones they love, plan for the future, or simply save to get a new tv all requires money. having a basic understanding of financial issues and how money works, is very important and is not limited to CPA's and business majors. being a computer geek does not exlcude me from having to worry about such matters.

    dude.

  121. GREAT! by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now all i need to do is seed the internet with copies of said sites - however I will not tell the people about their unwise investing... rather I will take their investments and apply them to my world domination fund!!!

    Thanks SEC.

  122. Re:Exactly how important or difficult is it to fak by geekoid · · Score: 2

    man,how depressing are you? sheeesh.
    I've been a computer geel since '81, and an electronic geek for as long as I can remember. I built my first radio when I was 7, and explained how it worked.
    I have been married for just about 12 years, and I've been in love for 14 years.
    The key is, get out and do something else. take up kyaking, or climbing, or surfing, something, anything that has little to do with computers.
    There are plent of intelegent attarctive people out there, not all of them are geeks.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  123. I salute you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sir, you do the world a great service. Thank you.

  124. $.02: Not effective. by mjh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think the SEC really gets it. I've been wrong lots of times before and I might be here. Personally, whenever I see a website that contains something that I'm even moderately curious about, I click on their "order here" button even if I'm not going to order anything. My hopes is that they might have some additional piece of critical information that wasn't obvious in the rest of their sight (for example shipping costs, payment options, etc). The point is that I generally investigate a site pretty thoroughly before I commit to sending any of *my* information to them.

    I doubt that I'm alone in this practice. What this means is that clicking on the "gotcha link" at McWhortle.com isn't really a gotcha. It's just part of trying to find out additional information about the company. If you really want to implement the "gotcha" I would think you'd have to delay the "gotcha" right up until someone actually is really ready to bid/purchase/whatever. You got to get to the point, I'd think, where people are actually thinking about doing this, and *then* hit them with the "gotcha". Otherwise, anyone who gets to the current "gotcha page" is going to dismiss it with, "Well, yeah I kinda thought this wasn't right. Glad I don't get caught by these things. Glad I don't have to worry about these kind of scams... on the other hand, check out this other site! Wow, investments in working cold fusion?"

    I would think if you're trying to convince someone that they are too gullible, you got to catch them in the process of actually having taken the bait. Otherwise, they're not likely to learn.

    $.02. Am I off my rocker?

    --
    Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    1. Re:$.02: Not effective. by Gannoc · · Score: 2
      You got to get to the point, I'd think, where people are actually thinking about doing this, and *then* hit them with the "gotcha".

      I thought that too; but think about it.

      How far can they go? Can they have people type in their credit card number and hit submit? They'd have people calling up the SEC and screaming that they just got scammed, and the website told them so. Not joking.

      Also, if people feel stupid, they get pissed off. This way, people can say that THEY would NEVER have really fallen for it...

    2. Re:$.02: Not effective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are absolutely correct.

      While I don't have a problem with taxpayer money being spent on making hundreds of thousands of netizens laugh (and I don't mean that sarcastically), I have to say something to address the flawed notion that www.mcwhortle.com and other scam parody sites will have the intended effect.

      Scams are pervasive, from web sites hyping worthless stock to message board posters to spammers. You don't have to look far to find scores of them in an afternoon. enforcement@sec.gov receives many many reports about penny stock pump-n-dump spammers and flimsy web sites with stock symbols but no actual street addresses, but the sites stay up and the pump-n-dump spams for the same symbols keep flowing.

      The SEC doesn't understand that the problem isn't a handful of scammers that know how to set up credible web sites bilking people out of hundreds of millions of dollars, the real problem is thousands of lamer idiots bilking the inevitable greenhorns out of a few thousand here, a few thousand there.

      If the SEC wants to reduce the amount of money that goes to scammers, then one of the things that the SEC is going to have to get serious about is doing a better job of acting on the thousands of reports of small-time scammers that are pouring into enforcement@sec.gov from the cynical netizen and antispammer crowds.

    3. Re:$.02: Not effective. by panaceaa · · Score: 1

      I completely agreed with you the first time I saw the "gotcha" page, but then I started thinking. What if someone was really looking for pre-IPO terrorism-related companies, and they're starting their research with many companies before they commit money. They will probably only send money to one or two companies, and chances are they wouldn't include McWhortle. By having the gotcha page so close to the home page, there's enough information to intrigue someone, but the lesson isn't lost on people who might end up sending their money to a different scam.

    4. Re:$.02: Not effective. by Saturn49 · · Score: 1

      How about some sort of Javascript, that as soon as you start typing in a credit card number, it shoots you onto the next page saying "You're an idiot." People are generally serious about buying something once they pull out the old plastic.

    5. Re:$.02: Not effective. by mjh · · Score: 2

      Or how about not actually collecting the information. So, for example when you give the credit card info it takes you to a page that, in addtion to gotcha, it says, "None of the information that you provided in the previous screen was stored anywhere on our site. We have no record of any information that you gave us." They could, of course, provide the source code to the CGI that accepts the data for audit purposes.

      But the previous poster is probably right. There's probably no way that they can do this w/out getting into a very serious PR problem. And as anyone who's ever worked for the government can attest, your first job (above all else) is to stay out of the newspapers.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    6. Re:$.02: Not effective. by Kanasta · · Score: 2

      I think a more fundamental problem is how stupid MCWHORTLE.COM sounds! Their 'logo' on the building is so ugly.

      If I was stupid enough to invest in places I don't know about, I would also be the type of person who would NOT invest in a place because their logo isn't pretty and their name sounds silly.

      Most scams I remember have cool sounding names and buzzwords in its title.

      This sounds like a wart.

    7. Re:$.02: Not effective. by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 2

      You're not off your rocker, but you're not right either. :-) If you do any investing, you should know that the sort of ridiculous returns the other web pages talk about are clear signs of a scam. In other words, the SEC thinks that anyone whose curiosity is even slightly piqued by that website is in danger of making a bad invesetment. They're right.

    8. Re:$.02: Not effective. by mjh · · Score: 2

      Excellent point!
      Score:+1,Insightful (Virtual Moderator Point).

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
  125. I gotta better idea! by Ogerman · · Score: 2

    Yes! it's perfect! Muahahah! We'll create a whole bunch of fake companies, put up flashy web pages with trendy earthtone color-schemes, advertise things people need like.. uh.. value-added B2B online toilet paper warehouses. Then we'll launch a bunch of fake IPO's that'll go wild because we're on the Internet and everybody knows the future of business is on the Internet! Yes. And then we'll take the money and run! That'll teach the fools to not believe all they read AND it'll stimulate the economy at the very same time!! Muahahah!

    Oh wait..

  126. let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The SEC prosecutes people that setup fake investment websites ... but now they're making their own to teach people a lesson? Maybe I'm asking the obvious, but I thought the SEC's jurisdiction entailed regulating securities transactions ... not serving as a teaching organization. Maybe next week they can prosecute themselves for investment fraud of this site.

  127. FTC sites and stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.wemarket4u.net/

    has the list of fake sites with stats.

  128. On yet another hand.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's a shame that our government feels compelled to play "mother hen" to fools and is spending money and resources to do so.
    (insert favorite rant against liberal democrats here)
    It's not the government's job to be your mama.

  129. Isn't this kinda like... by Ogerman · · Score: 2

    ..trying to stop Napster by uploading renamed MP3's of Homer Simpson repeatedly saying D'oh!

  130. Re:Not Frost Pist!!! by ookla_the_mok · · Score: 0

    you stinky goatlickin' spoogemonkeys are making it hard for me to browse at -1.

    You are shooting off your own foots i tell you.

    If you continue this i will have difficulty finding my way to your home to pleasure your mom and your aunt millie. and you KNOW who's door millie comes knockin' on after she's had a couple whiskey sours at the bowling alley dontcha fucko? Yeah, that's right, and i'm gonna tell her to leave the bowling shoes ON next time.

  131. Government lies are lies. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    It's true, the lies are not intended to be destructive. But I think that they are unintentionally destructive, because they make us all realize that our government cannot be trusted not to lie.

    I am very much for educating the public. This, in my opinion, is not the way to do it.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
    1. Re:Government lies are lies. by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 2

      Are you kidding? What better lesson could the public possibly learn than that governments lie?

    2. Re:Government lies are lies. by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      because they make us all realize that our government cannot be trusted not to lie.

      If Watergate and Iran-Contra and all the stuff about Social Security haven't taught them that yet, why do you think some website with no intent to defraud or ability to harm will?

  132. I followed the sites and then hit GOOGLE by da_Den_man · · Score: 1

    And Google returned the following when using the Designed by MACS Online line at the bottom of one of the scam pages:

    You Could Get Scammed! If you pursued the Virility Plus impotence treatment offer... File a Complaint YOU COULD HAVE ... www.wemarket4u.net/virilityplus/order.htm - 5k - Cached - Similar pages

    Orgamax the latest herbal alternative to Viagra from Herbal ... Orgamax is the exciting new sexual revitalisation formula that acts as both an aphrodisiac and a performance enhancer for men. ... Description: Orgamax is the exciting new sexual revitalisation formula that acts as both an aphrodisiac and a performa... Category: Shopping > Health > Conditions and Diseases > Impotence www.orgamax.co.uk/ - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

    Eagles Nest Success Partners - Ultra Arginine Enhance Your Sexual Functioning and Support Immune and Cardiovascular Systems! ... Did you know? ... Description: Enhance your sexual performance. Support cardiovascular and immune system and erectile functioning.... Category: Shopping > Health > Conditions and Diseases > Impotence www.building4success.com/arginine_ultra.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

    Natural Wood Description: An all natural alternative to Viagra, NaturalWood has been in use for thousands of years by native... Category: Shopping > Health > Conditions and Diseases > Impotence www.naturalwood.com/ - 1k - Cached - Similar pages

    Ultra "V" Plus for Men and Women, Viagra Alternative for ... Check Out Our Complete Product Line. Check Out NuBio's Other Fine Products. ... Save 10% on his and hers order with the Luvpak. ... Description: Complete information on a Viagra alternative at a fraction of the cost. Category: Shopping > Health > Conditions and Diseases > Impotence nubioresearch.com/ultrav/ - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

    So who is being protected when all they did was repeat the actual Losers sites of scammers? Why not shut them down instead of just copying them?

    --
    You keep going until you die..."Me".
  133. Here's all of them, with hit stats by twoflower · · Score: 3, Informative

    Go to the front page here, to see how many suckers each site has gotten:

    http://www.wemarket4u.net/

    Twoflower

    --


    --
    Twoflower
  134. This is perfect by guttentag · · Score: 4, Funny
    Now I can set up a fake investment site, and if anyone actually calls my bluff, I can avoid prosecution by sending them the following email:
    Congratulations! You've beaten the SEC Internet Trust Challenge! This is actually a fake investment site set up by the SEC to teach consumers about trust on the Internet. We'll refund your money within 30 days AND send you your Winner's Bonus. Thanks for playing, and remember: it pays to be Safe on the Internet!

    Bob Johnson
    Ass't Director of Consumer Protection, F Section
    Securities and Exchange Commission
    Washington, DC 20006

    1. Re:This is perfect by doorbot.com · · Score: 2

      Great idea... impersonating Federal employee will put you away for a lot longer than setting up a fake investment website.

      I say go for it.

  135. Re:Not Frost Pist!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I couldn't read most of your comment. The page seems to be too wide for it to fit all on one screen. Please post again with a maximum of 5 words per paragraph.

  136. mcwhortlesucks.com isn't taken! by BreadMan · · Score: 1

    Most real companies get the sucks.com domain if some disgruntled party didn't beat them to the punch.

    Someone with time on their hands could make a decently funny parody site.

    1. Re:mcwhortlesucks.com isn't taken! by notsoanonymouscoward · · Score: 1

      why bother? just mirror it =)

      --
      I ate my sig.
  137. Stupid. by greygent · · Score: 1

    This is a shite idea.

    It just pollutes the web with another website offering the same type of advice as a "legitimate" scam site, further substantiating the actual scams.

    That's all that needs to be said on this.

  138. Out of curiosity... by pkinetics · · Score: 1
    Just food for thought, but even if you're smart enough to do a whois, does that necessarily give you enough information to know that the company is legit?

    Steal a few credit cards, register a couple of domains, set up a phony investment site. Roll the money in, create phony credit cards. Repeat cycle.

    Has anyone run through and seen whether or not they actually give enough feedback to tell the user, "This is how to identify a phony site."

  139. Enron Human Rights Statement by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did anyone read the Enron Human Rights Statement? The part concerning "fair compensation" for employees was quite laughable :)

    Honorable mentions also go to the clause concerning the conducting of businesses according to given laws, along with the section concerning "Respect".

    --
    In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
    1. Re:Enron Human Rights Statement by shyster · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Did anyone read the Enron Human Rights Statement [enron.com]? The part concerning "fair compensation" for employees was quite laughable :) Honorable mentions also go to the clause concerning the conducting of businesses according to given laws, along with the section concerning "Respect".

      I hate to defend Enron...but you should probably wait until the facts are straightened out before jumping to too many conclusions. It's very possible that Enron operated within the law...just about everything that I've heard about is (or could be, depending on unknown circumstances), technically, legal. Though Enron pushed them a liitle further than most

      It's legal to set up off shore subsidaries to launder money for tax purposes. (Exxon has 6, Enron had 900+)

      It's legal, and common practice, to have employer stock heavy 401k's. A lot of companies match 401k contributions with company stock. This is, in effect, free money to the employee. Many employees take advantage of this, and end up having an undiversified 401k account.

      It's legal to prevent employees from seeling their 401k stock...if it's not paid for. A lot of companies will finance the price of their stock fro their employees, and deduct the cost from their paycheck for a period of time. Until it's completely paid off, you can't sell the stock. It's possible that this was how it worked at Enron. The execs, making more money, were able to pay off their stock purchases befor rank ands filers.

      And of course, campaign contributions are legal. And so is asking an administration for help...and even getting it (see General Motors and the airline industry).

    2. Re:Enron Human Rights Statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legal does not necessarily mean ethical. Note that the page The page doesn't talk about simple legality, it talks about "fairness".

    3. Re:Enron Human Rights Statement by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 1

      I hate to defend Enron...but you should probably wait until the facts are straightened out before jumping to too many conclusions.

      You're absolutely right... I was attempting to stress the irony of it all. But you're right, a lot of what happened with Enron is perfectly legal. I actually find fault with the employees for not diversifying their investment portfolios.

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
    4. Re:Enron Human Rights Statement by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      Screw the letter of the law. I wan't to see companies prosecuted for violating the spirit of the law, or at least for being antisocial.

      -Paul Komarek

    5. Re:Enron Human Rights Statement by moeller · · Score: 1

      Enron has committed many crimes. By no standard have they acted legally in the past decade (and beyond).

      One example: Enron would treat the volume of a trade as pure revenue. For example, if they bought a resource for $90, and then sold it for $100, they counted the $100 as revenue instead of the difference of $10. That's blatantly illegal; it violates GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and therefore SEC regulations.

      But furthermore, the company created contracts with subsidiaries in which a loss by the subsidiary would require that the subsidiary pay Enron an amount equal to the loss; however, if the subsidiary had positive earnings, then Enron would count it in their corporate financial data. Very, very illegal.

      Enron has had a rich history, full of illegal business transactions and financial deals. Enron did indeed push the law, but it was pushed so hard it shattered. Several times. Mach 3 sonic shock kind of shattered. Enron and its executives had no respect for the law.

  140. www.fool.com by dcocos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The weekly e-mail from the Motley Fool website states they've decided to make the majority of good information on their site only available to paying customers for 20 some dollars a year. My first piece of "Foolish" (free of charge) investing advice is save yourself more than $20 a year by getting info from other web sources.

  141. Aggressive prosecution of securities fraud instead by swb · · Score: 2

    Instead of wasting valuable resources making fake fraud sites, why not invest those resources into vigorous prosecution of securities fraud? I mean start locking lots of guys up in maximum security facilities for a long time and strip them and their families of their assets. And start with Fortune 500 companies playing footsie with the rules. Rules not tough enough? Use some of the money to lobby congress for increased criminal penalties and jail time for securities fraud.

    If the enforcement resources are wasted on BS education efforts and the penalties are soft (fines, probation, country club minimum security "jails"), people are going to keep doing it.

    Pretending to steal my money and calling it fighting theft instead of actually finding and punishing people who steal is stupid, plain and simple.

  142. Project Moneypot :-) by Crispin+Cowan · · Score: 2
    Cousin to the Honeypot idea, meet the Moneypot :-)

    Crispin
    ----
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc.
    Immunix: Security Hardened Linux Distribution
    Available for purchase

  143. Warren Buffett says... by Shao+Ke · · Score: 0

    Don't invest in anything with which you are not intimately familiar.
    If people would obey this rule it would pretty much stop scams in their tracks.

  144. Nice Title Sparky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at the title on the videonewswire link off the mchwortle.com press section...

  145. Hope no new "Linux" companies try an IPO... by GeekWithGuns · · Score: 1

    Just think of it from the perspective of a new investor:

    "Hmm...this company is tring to make a living selling "Free Software". And they say it is better than Microsoft's software! Lies! Call the SEC!"

    But then again some scepticism would have been a good thing during the DotBomb era.

    --
    [End of diatribe. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...] - Larry Wall in Configure from the perl
  146. F**ked Company time? by garfangle · · Score: 1

    When is McWhortle going to become pud's newest hall of fame inductee?

  147. I knew this was fake... by new+death+barbie · · Score: 1

    ...because it stayed up after being posted on slashdot.

    Any legit company would have succumbed to the /. effect.

    --

    It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

  148. What about SEC/FTC Spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a point of curiosity... But what happens when the SEC/FTC begins to buy bulk email addresses and spam people? :-/

    Some of the "hook and sinker" sites are along many of the same lines of the spam i receive (Virility Drugs, Home-Use Electronics, Offshore Investing), so whats keeping them from sending out UBE/UCE to generate hits and then inform the dim-bulb they made a grave mistake?

    Personally, i believe my inbox is cluttered enough, and would much prefer natural selection to take its course and those who can't manage their investments (online or otherwise) be damned...

  149. SEC owns you by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

    IANAL.

    SEC doesnt have legal athority except in fraud, thats why they settle many cases with people for a cut of the profit.

    Many people just let these agencies run them over, you do have legal rights. And surprise, sometimes our courts uphold them.

  150. WOOT! SEC/Mcwhortle runs linux! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From netrcraft.com:
    The site mcwhortle.com is running
    Apache/1.3.22 (Unix) on Linux.

  151. not a yahoo story by mutzinator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The SEC didn't get Yahoo to write a story on them, they just released a press release through PRNewswire. Yahoo picks these up and carries them. Note both the "WASHINGTON, Jan. 25 /PRNewswire/" at the beginning and "SOURCE: McWhortle Enterprises, Inc." at the top and bottom.

  152. Ours should be the first that tries honesty. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    It is a good lesson. But it would be extremely valuable if our government was the one that tried honesty.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
    1. Re:Ours should be the first that tries honesty. by pheonix · · Score: 2

      This must be a troll, because even Mr. Rogers isn't this naive. This is lying like every actor in Hollywood lies when they play a role. This is a lie like an undercover cop. In short, it's not a lie... posing, yes, a lie, no.

  153. Crime Jamming by jamesmartinluther · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is an interesting episode of "crime jamming" and reminds me of strategies to reduce the population of unwanted insects. Criminals are exposed by dilluting their means to scam people with "neutered" sites.

    I could see this successfully applied to illegal online gambling, murder-for-hire, illegal forms of pornography, perhaps even to nab would-be terrorists.

    Unfortunately for the slashdot crowd, I could see the MPAA and other corporate orgs posting sites which catch people attempting to download software and content that they did not pay for. Hopefully, in this case, would-be bandits would only get Apple's favorite community service message: "Don't Steal Music".

    - James

  154. I think that aspect of the site has changed by mutzinator · · Score: 1

    I suspect that at one point that link led to a form asking for personal data, and only after submission did they serve up the "gotcha" page.

    evidence to support this can be found on the gotcha page where they say:

    Finally, McWhortle asked victims to supply a major credit card and social security number, "for identification purposes." The FTC wants you to be aware that by stealing your name, credit card number and/or social security number, fraudsters can effectively steal your identity and ruin your credit rating. Read more about identity theft here. (And by the way, we have not collected any information about you.)

    I can't find McWhortle's request for CC or SSN on the current site, so perhaps the site has been changed

    who knows why they changed it. even though they "have not collected any information about you" perhaps they didn't have https set up and they realised that having morons sending that information in the clear was a bad idea.

    1. Re:I think that aspect of the site has changed by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      Maybe they took it off after someone hacked the site so that it really did collect credit card numbers, and said it hadn't ;-)

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    2. Re:I think that aspect of the site has changed by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      Still there.
      http://mcwhortle.com/investnow.htm
      "Bidding is now accepted for Stage 2 of the McWhortle Enterprises Pre-IPO offering. Estimated share value is approximately $10, which will, upon conclusion of the IPO offering in three (3) months, be worth more than 400 times the initial investment. To bid on these shares, you must quickly e-mail us the number of shares you wish to purchase, together with your major credit card number and social security number (for identification) so we can reserve your slot."

      Do people actually fall for these things?

  155. Re:Looks like a lot of the Spam I've been getting. by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Take for example Google's Zeitgeist. The two most popular searches in September 2001 were "Nostradamus" and "CNN". For september 11th here, the most puplar search was for cnn. I'm sorry, but the internet is full of morons now. How much of an idiot do you have to be to need to search for "cnn"? Gah.

  156. This idea would cook with SPAM by Jettra · · Score: 1

    This is a great idea. Next they should send out fake spam and when people reply they will be sent an email informing them that replying to spam only increases the likelyhood of more spam.

    Let's hope not!

    Jettra

  157. McWhortle can not be the only one... by WalterSobchak · · Score: 1

    McWhortle is actually listed in an SEC Press Release, so it's not only slashdotters... Where are the other sites though? Alex

    --
    Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder
  158. Interesting? More like abusive. by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

    The SEC is spending my tax money on this.

    Remember that the SEC is not a cooperatively run citizens advocacy group, or watchdog group, or anything voluntary at all. It is a government agency that spends other peoples money to fund their pet projects.

    That said, I might have contributed to such an educational program myself, if given the choice. Taxes provide no such choice.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  159. Picture look familiar? by theKiyote · · Score: 1

    I dont know if any of you are fans of the movie Sneakers, but does the building look familiar to you? hmm... --theKiyote

    1. Re:Picture look familiar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which building are you referring to? It's not PlayTronics.

      -G

  160. kawaisooo yo!! by notsoanonymouscoward · · Score: 1

    thank you for informing those "who lack intelligance."

    --
    I ate my sig.
  161. more uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will also allow the SEC to use these sites for statistical sampling to estimate how many really stupid people are actually on the internet at any one time.

  162. I don't agree by Blue+Lozenge · · Score: 1
    If you hold off on the "gotcha" until they are handing you a check, then you only get to warn the most gullible of investors.

    OTOH, if you let them know sooner, then you will get to warn a larger number of slightly-less-gullible people about the potential for investment scams.

  163. Funny Product Acronym by ArticulateArne · · Score: 1

    Apparently nobody else has notices the acronym on their primary product, the Bio-Hazard Alert Detector.

    BHAD

    B HAD

    Or is it just me?

  164. Re:This is perfect (Devil's Advocate) by Cap'n+Crax · · Score: 1



    You know, if you play the Devil's advocate here, these sites could actually be used by less-than honest people as templates to set up sites that really DO plan to rip people off. Just find one of the more convincing SEC fake sites, change it around a bit, and start raking in the dough from the sheeple... I just KNOW that someone, somewhere is working on one of these right now.

    --
    PK: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
  165. Get the name right please by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1

    Our pheerless leader's name should be listed as Commander Rob "Taco" Malda, hence the abbreviation "Cmdr. Taco".

    -B

    --
    Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
    1. Re:Get the name right please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it. Is CowboyNeal really a cowboy?

  166. FTC Teaser Pages List and Stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is a list of FTC pages including some new for 2001, and stats on the traffic they have been getting.

    http://www.wemarket4u.net/

  167. FBI entrapment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, they got the Java guy in a similar way.

  168. You are more likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to be murdered than to win the lottery. So I don't enter the lottery. I hope this way to avoid being murdered :-)

  169. Photoshopping Job by BradNelson · · Score: 1

    The SEC even took pictures of buildings and photoshopped the name of their "company" onto them.

    http://www.mcwhortle.com/mcwbldg.jpg

    Photoshoppers apply now.

  170. How much of this is slashdot? :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.mcwhortle.com/stats/usage_200201.html (found from robots.txt) - So far we've got them up to 0.9GB, at hundreds of thousands of hits. Reload and enjoy watching the slashdot effect in real time =). Oh, and let's hear a cheer for the SEC for doing this the economical/intelligent way!

  171. Not as much as you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See what I mean here (I find it unnecessary to duplicate comments).

    1. Re:Not as much as you think by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

      Yes, I find their use of open source commendable, from a personal point of view.

      They still used tax money to do it.

      Bob-

      --
      The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  172. the SEC is making it tougher to Google for these by awharnly · · Score: 1

    From http://www.mcwhortle.com/robots.txt

    Disallow: /stats/>
    Disallow: /financials.htm
    Disallow: /onlinebid.htm


    which means that we can't just search for other web sites with a "don't be a fool" page like the onlinebid.htm page at mcwhortle.

  173. Re: different story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the fuck is this flaimbate? I think the child porn loving person that modded this flaimbate should have his nuts cut off too. I think CMiYC is completely reasonable in his statement.

  174. Re: different story by CMiYC · · Score: 2

    That's slashdot for you....

  175. Sounds like a good idea... by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

    ... As long as they don't spam me with solicitations to invest in this scheme!

  176. Bad idea? by dotpuppy · · Score: 1

    Isn't this just going encourage some scammers to set up similar 'test-sites' that take all the information they need, then tell you not to fall for scams and proceed to cheat you out of your money anyway?

  177. completely off topic by gtx · · Score: 1

    not to be a bastard, but a moonless night won't make anything less transparent. think about it - when you turn the lights off, does glass go opaque?

    -c

    --


    "I hope I don't make a mistake and manage to remain a virgin." - Britney Spears
  178. Found another one by Radical+Rad · · Score: 2, Funny
    http://www.enron.com/corp/investors/annuals/2000/o urvalues.html

    This site was created by the SEC, FTC, NASD, with a little help from their friends, the Whitehouse.

    The agencies and groups, except one, created the site because of an increase in investment scams. But the Bush Administration has invoked executive privaledge to keep its reasons for helping to create the site secret.

    The site shows some of the telltale signs of online investment fraud. Promises of fast and high profits, with little or no risk, are classic red flags of fraud. And one obvious tip off was that they claimed to be a broadband provider who's 'business model is working.'

  179. We're not the target audience. by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 3

    Okay folks. Many people are claiming that nobody would be stupid enough to fall for the (known) SEC fakes. Especially if their fake status becomes "common knowledge". Well, I've got some news for you.

    There are people who forward chain letters because they're afraid they'll die if they don't. There are people who believe Amway will make them rich. There are people who think Scientology makes sense. There are people who killed themselves in late 1999 (IIRC) to meet on the backside of a comet.

    There are people who believe that Bill Gates will pay them for being part of an email tracking experiment. There are people who believe computer viruses can make your ice cream go all melty (well, maybe that's stretching things...). Some people gave money, of their own free will, to Donald Trump.

    And there are people who believed GW Bush had a "clear policy for the Middle East" during the presidential debates.

    You could show the mcwhortle site to these people, tell them it's a fake, and they'd still fall for it. While we like to claim that those who write "first post" are the least intelligent creatures on earth, they're already head-and-shoulders above the people the SEC is trying to help. Many of these people are retired, and hoping to get something back from the society they gave 40+ years of work to (like my father). Some of these people abandon all reason when it comes to this hope (unlike my father, thankfully).

    The SEC is trying to reduce the number of fraud-related tragedies among these people, and I think it's a good thing. In fact, I think this is one of the coolest things I've seen our government do for the public, ever. The SEC seems to have a clue about real life and real people, unlike the Whitehouse and Congress (no matter who is in residence at the time).

    -Paul Komarek

  180. Orson Swindle? by jkovach · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does it strike anyone besides me as just a wee bit wrong to have an FTC Commissioner named Mr. Swindle?

  181. Re:Looks like a lot of the Spam I've been getting. by global_diffusion · · Score: 1

    I am strongly convinced that a majority of Americans are completely braindead.

    Braindead or were never taught how to think? The brain is like a muscle in the sense that if you don't use it, it gets weak. Unfortunately, most children, even in the US, are not taught how to flex their brains.

  182. FTC != SEC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTC Teaser Pages - Page Views by Month

    The table shows the number of page views for each of the FTC's teaser sites. The page views are based on accesses to the initial page of each site.

    YAAD

  183. CMGI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but close. We actually used to do business with you guys...tried to model our business on yours. I guess we were closer than we thought...haha.

  184. Take it one step further... by aug24 · · Score: 1

    If they're that stupid, why not take the money and use it to fund (voter-friendly) tax cuts?

    After all, the 'tax on fools' principle has already been established - in this country, England, anyway - by the National Lottery.

    Moreover, once word got out that the Government, rather than some dodgy dealer, was overtly nicking people's money, Internet scams would die out overnight. Being ripped off is one thing, paying more money to the government than you have to is what really pisses people off.

    --
    You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  185. Bad idea? by clubin · · Score: 1

    Good way to scare people away from using the internet at all, no?

    This foolery could very well have been conducted from multiple fronts (including non-web methods), but, AIUI, it wasn't.

  186. Passport failure? by juu · · Score: 1

    Well, they have to show it at some point - sooner than later means they address a larger audience - even if some of it unnecessary.

    Anyway (somewhat offtopic) - isn't this a reason why Passport should fail? I would want to be sure that a Website doesn't get my data before I enter them. So would the next guy. Spread some (substantiated) FUD and say goodbye to Hailstorm, Passport or whatever you call it...?

  187. At Least It's Not SPAM by tmjva · · Score: 1

    At least the SEC isn't spamming also.

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
  188. Easy acceptance that your government lies... by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    Easy acceptance that your government lies is acknowledgement that it is not your government.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  189. Is responsible government beyond imagining? by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    It's not a troll. I've learned a lot from the responses. Some people seem to feel that asking their government to be responsible is beyond imagining.

    If you are a U.S. citizen, you pay for this attitude. You pay Israel $905 per year for every man, woman, and child who lives there. Why? Apparently so that U.S. weapons makers can make more profit.

    If you allow your government to lie, you can be sure of two things: 1) You won't be the one in control. 2) You will pay.

    The U.S. government does a lot of things you probably don't suspect and for which, if you are a U.S. citizen, you probably don't want to pay. For example, the U.S. government brought Arabs to the U.S. and trained them in terrorism. The U.S. government was planning to attack Afghanistan long before the September 11, 2001 terrorism in the U.S. because a profitable oil and gas pipeline is planned that must go through Afghanistan. The terrorism apparently gave the government the excuse for which it was looking. For more about this, see the collection of links in What should be the Response to Violence?.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  190. I wonder how well this will work by Crag · · Score: 1

    I also wonder if it could be applied to other situations:

    DMV insider: Sir, would you like a stiff drink before your long drive? You probably won't even notice it...

    or

    FDA insider: Ma'am, would you like to buy this unlabeled food product? It's probably not poisonous...

    or

    Campaign Finance Reform insider: Mr. CEO, would you like to invest in this slimy politician? You probably won't get in trouble...

    I can see lots of potential for this kind of education.