Slashdot Mirror


One Year Later, Zer01 Web Site Disappears

alphadogg writes "Zer01 Mobile — making promises of flat rate, no contract, unlimited cell phone service — made its grand entrance at the annual CTIA wireless convention about a year ago, but now the company's Web site has disappeared. The site recently began redirecting visitors to Google.com. Zer01, which was lauded for its plans in the mainstream press, aligned itself with a multilevel marketing company called Global Verge (whose founder had earlier been convicted of securities fraud), and the two companies began recruiting salespeople who paid a monthly fee to be part of a sales program. (Since then, Global Verge and Zer01 parted ways and Global Verge filed a lawsuit against its former partner.) But no mobile service from Zer01 ever materialized. Salespeople were promised payment based on how many other salespeople they signed up to the program, although few appear to have received payment. But as late as the fall CTIA show in October, Zer01's CEO was still promising to launch the mobile service."

155 comments

  1. MLM Scam strikes again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, based on no further information than that in the article... can you say Multi-level marketing scam? I knew you could

    1. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up..

    2. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      P-Py-Pyramid scheme? I guess AmWay was beat to the cell phone market by Zer01?

    3. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by L3370 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      multi level, or network marketing is a legal scheme provided that there is a tangible product or service in the mix, like those herbal juices you see advertised on the back of peoples cars. Zer01 only sold the idea of a future product...vaporware. This doesn't seem to be an "MLM" type scam to me, but a full fledged 100% illegal pyramid scheme.

    4. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the summary:

      began recruiting salespeople who paid a monthly fee to be part of a sales program

      What more do you need to know?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU GOT MADOFFED!

    6. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "like those herbal juices you see advertised on the back of peoples cars"

      You mean the ones that get sold with a pitch that makes them out to be some elixir of eternal youth? While the scheme may be legitimate, I've yet to see it being used in conjunction with a product that wasn't a load of horseshit.

      --
      I hate printers.
    7. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

      "multi level, or network marketing is a legal scheme provided that there is a tangible product or service in the mix,"

      Even if there is a tangible product, it's still a scam. See the Illinois rulings against Scentura Creations.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scentura

      In fact, most MLMs are violating one or more various laws in individual states.

      The way MLMs are operated now is a violation of some state and some federal laws.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    8. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by AndGodSed · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, for a MLM to be legal in the US, it has to sell more than 50% (iirc) of its products to non members. Currently the most successful MLM in the us only sells about 17% of its products to non members.

      Too lazy to google, I looked it up a few days ago because someone tried to sucker me into going to a scamway meeting.

    9. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by precariousgray · · Score: 1

      You echo my sentiments exactly, but I'm actually kind of curious if anyone could come up with a legitimate answer to that question. I've seen so many scams like this through the years and immediately brushed them off, as they were obvious, but others still get caught up in them.

      I just feel like there's something I must be missing.

      --
      not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
    10. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      began recruiting salespeople who paid a monthly fee to be part of a sales program

      Sounds like iPhone owners /ducks

    11. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by vegiVamp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tupperware parties ?

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    12. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by Teancum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I use this criteria for telling off a MLM distributor:

      If you can get me a better deal by buying your product through you as opposed to what I can buy at the local Wal-Mart or from other local retailers, I'll buy it from you.

      Sadly, I have yet to get a single MLM marketer to take me up on the offer. The truth is they can't compete except on sky high promises and on schemes that ultimately put so many hands into the profit stream that you can't get a reasonably priced product even if you tried. In fact, as a part of the sales pitch they will start to tell me that I can get these fabulous discounts if you become a high ranking salemen, which is where you can start to have prices compete with conventional retail outlets. The truth is even with these so-called discounts they still aren't all that good of a deal.

      What these companies are selling is dreams, and as such it is a scam. The 17% to non-members may even be high, but I'd have to agree with you that it is a problem.

    13. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      What you're missing is the desperation of salesmen who have been suckered into joining and now have to find some way to recoup their investment. Combined with the fact that since it's a shitty proposition, you have a license to be a dick and twist the arm of anyone you meet.

      To some people, desperation and assholishness are empowering.

    14. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by AndGodSed · · Score: 1

      You hit the nail on the head with your 'dreams' comment.

      If you take a poll of the average person anywhere in the world and you ask them "would you like to have more of $dream in your life" 80% of them would answer yes to more than one of $dream, which could be TIME (a favourite of MLM's), money, posessions, even happiness or a bunch of others.

      MLM schemes promise the chance to let you realise that dream, "If you work hard now on your "Independent Business" you can be "financially free" or you can "have two holidays per year, 6months each."

      It is a lie, but people are so desperate to make some change in their lives, even when it is not really necessary that they will go for a chance to make loads of cash.

      Funny thing is that they have a better chance to make that money at a casino than with an MLM.

    15. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by chris+mazuc · · Score: 1

      My old boss gave me a bottle of acai juice one time... not bad with Gosling's black seal rum. Just dilute the acai juice a bit first or its going to be really strong. Best use I could find for it. Personally, every time I see one of those MonaVie stickers on someone's car I mentally substitute the word idiot in its place.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    16. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but there is no such thing as real MLM. It’s just a term, pyramid scheme criminal organizations use, to describe themselves, so they officially can stay legal. In reality, there is no difference between MLM and pyramid schemes. They are the same. Their purpose is fraud. Always. No exceptions.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    17. Re:MLM Scam strikes again? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      From the summary:

      began recruiting salespeople who paid a monthly fee to be part of a sales program

      What more do you need to know?

      What other kind of place that charges you to work comes to mind? Strip clubs.

      Any others?

  2. When will people learn by jaymz2k4 · · Score: 1

    Salespeople were promised payment based on how many other salespeople they signed up to the program, although few appear to have received payment.

    Seriously? How people ever think this sort of plan makes fiscal sense and isn't at all dodgy I will never understand.

    --
    jaymz
    1. Re:When will people learn by SomeJoel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most people are bad at math and logical reasoning. The sooner you accept that, the sooner the world will suddenly make sense.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    2. Re:When will people learn by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Most people are bad at math and logical reasoning.

      Compared to what? The average person? That's impossible. The top 5% of people at math and logical reasoning? Well, they would be by definition. Compared with the level of math proficiency and logical reasoning -you- think they should be at? If that's the case, I'd argue you have unrealistic expectations. Compared to you?

    3. Re:When will people learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, I'm pretty sure that there are objective measures that can prove whether or not someone is bad at math.

    4. Re:When will people learn by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Compared to smart people, duh.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    5. Re:When will people learn by Anachragnome · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Greed is probably the greatest foe of common-sense.

      I say "probably" only because I think religion is neck-and-neck.

      Combine the two, and, well...you end up with the likes of the Trinity Broadcast Network and Joel Osteen.

    6. Re:When will people learn by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Umm, I'm pretty sure that there are objective measures that can prove whether or not someone is bad at math.

      No there's not! I would never believe a statistic I didn't make up myself.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    7. Re:When will people learn by interkin3tic · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that there are objective measures that can prove whether or not someone is bad at math.

      There are ways of suggesting a person is worse at math than the average person, yes. But you're using most people as the standard there. Saying "Most people are bad at math," what standard are you using there? "Most people are worse at math than..." what?

      That's what I'm saying.

    8. Re:When will people learn by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Compared with the vast majority of slashdotters (for instance) that saw this as a scam from the very get go. I think my point here would be that you are "bad at math and logical reasoning" if you can't spot a pyramid scam the second someone shows it to you. Even real MLMs are only just barely not scams, and it doesn't take a genius to work out just how stupid this entire scheme was.

      I'm not implying that I expect the majority of people to be "good" at math and logic, I just expect them to not be retarded either. Clearly I'm going to have to work on my expectations, as they are off a bit.

    9. Re:When will people learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can be bad at math without being worse than average. It's possible for the average to be bad. If 80% of people answer 5 when you ask them for the square root of 36, then 80% of people are bad at math.

    10. Re:When will people learn by Jer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most people are bad at math and logical reasoning. The sooner you accept that, the sooner the world will suddenly make sense.

      Meh. Many people are greedy fools who think they're smarter than average and can't be easily tricked. Con artists have time-tested, good methods to exploit these attributes. Pyramid schemes are actually a great tool for exploiting people who think they're smarter than average - after all they only have to con X other people into the scam and then they're set. Clearly they're going to be able to find X other people who are dumber than they are that they can exploit and get money out of. And the X other people they con into the scam? Who cares - they're idiots and shouldn't have let themselves get conned into a pyramid scheme...

      Nobody in a pyramid scheme thinks they're going to be left holding the bag at the end. That's how pyramid schemes work. They work great even if all of the participants are fully aware of the fact that they're in a pyramid scheme because everyone at every level is convinced that it's only the suckers below them who are going to lose their shirts and that their own risk is minimal. Even if everyone has awesome logical reasoning skills if they start from a faulty premise (i.e. I'm too smart to be left holding the bag at the end of this scam) they're going to reach a faulty conclusion.

    11. Re:When will people learn by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Most people are worse at math than..." what?

      A horse that can count to three with his hoof? Well, it is his left hoof, and we all know left hoofedness is a sign of intelligence.

    12. Re:When will people learn by retchdog · · Score: 1

      It's rational to join an MLM if you're high enough on the pyramid. Speaking for my self, the reason I don't join these things is that 1. I "know" (or believe that I know) I am very low on the chain; 2. I'm a bad salesperson anyways because I have trouble buying into lies.

      I've never even bothered to compute my expected payoff, mostly because of the uncertainty associated with point 1., supra.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    13. Re:When will people learn by Josh04 · · Score: 1

      If you're going to be 'high' on the chain, why not just go and set your own scheme up, and reap the benefits?

    14. Re:When will people learn by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      At that point, you have to be doing something with a product, like producing it. It's easier, and cheaper, to get yourself situated high up in the chain of another person's MLM since you don't have any of those requirements.

    15. Re:When will people learn by MrNaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You fail to grasp the postmodern movement. In the modern epistemological paradigm, if 80% of people agree that the square root of 36 is 5, then the process we are morally obliged to embark upon is a redefinition of what the square root of 36 is, followed by a re-evaluation of all of the principles that are based upon the old, now-incorrect fact.

      Failing to undertake this could result in children being left behind. We cannot afford to allow this to happen. Thus, we must allow not allow inflexible principles of mathematics to handicap the education of our children or the development of society as a whole.

      (Just in case it's not clear: This post is sarcastic.)

      --
      I hate printers.
    16. Re:When will people learn by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Even real MLMs are only just barely not scams

      Depends.

      Some of them sell products that are only *theoretically* worth buying. Like those special juices that are supposed to be awesomely high in antioxidants (and therefore good for what ails you) because they're made from fruit that doesn't grow in North America. These are healthy, in the sense that, being fruit juice, they're much better for you than (say) pop; but they're sold at absurdly out-of-proportion prices that no honest sales pitch would convince anyone to pay. So yeah, they set off a lot of people's scam radar, even though they're technically legal (as long as the sales people don't make *concrete* fraudulent claims).

      But there are also multilevel-marketed products that are quite good and markedly *superior* to what you can buy at the store. Not very many, mind you. But they exist. Tupperware is perhaps the best example. Sure, it costs more than competing brands, but it's also higher quality stuff. The lids fit better, go on easier, and stay on better. Also, until about ten years ago, all the major competing products were made from decidedly inferior plastics. (Lately the competition has improved considerably in that regard.)

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    17. Re:When will people learn by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Nobody in a pyramid scheme thinks they're going to be left holding the bag at the end.

      That's because they're bad at math.

      Fundamentally, the pyramidal-growth property that makes the money multiply (geometrically, in most schemes) *also* makes the number of people who get left holding the bag multiply with the same curve. So in any pyramid scheme, the probability that you will lose your investment and end up with nothing correlates *strongly* with the amount of money your optimistic side hopes you can make.

      And that's not even taking into consideration the probability of getting caught.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    18. Re:When will people learn by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 1

      Most people are bad at math and logical reasoning.

      Compared to what?

      Thank you for providing that excellent example of how most people are bad at logical reasoning.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    19. Re:When will people learn by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      You fail to grasp the postmodern movement. In the modern epistemological paradigm, if 80% of people agree that the square root of 36 is 5, then the process we are morally obliged to embark upon is a redefinition of what the square root of 36 is, followed by a re-evaluation of all of the principles that are based upon the old, now-incorrect fact.

      Can't we just edit Wikipedia instead?

    20. Re:When will people learn by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Combine the two, and,"

      You end up with our government for the past half century.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    21. Re:When will people learn by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Posting to remove accidental mod.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    22. Re:When will people learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You fail to grasp the postmodern movement.

      Actually, bitch, I lived with an epistemologist for 3 years, and was engaged to her for 2. So, not only did I grasp the postmodern movement, I fucked one of the soldiers. A bunch. It was a lot of fun, and so were the arguments, but she was definitely full of shit. But that was fun too. Unfortunately she was a whore.

    23. Re:When will people learn by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      In the same way that most people are bad at flying, jumping over the grand canyon, time travel, and teleportation. You determine a set of objective critera to form a test and see what the mean score is. If the mean score is above 50%, then most people are good at that task.

      Now, if you'll excuse me I have some tests to administer to some subjects in Arizona.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    24. Re:When will people learn by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Greed. See the mortgage collapse. A majority of those people were good at math and reasoning, but they were greedy. They thought they could cut a few corners and make it big.

    25. Re:When will people learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but she was definitely full of shit. But that was fun too.

      OK, *that* was 'way too much information. Take your fetish and begone - there are Web sites out there for you, but this is not one of them.

    26. Re:When will people learn by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Oh no no no, you intolerant clod! Who are you to say that the square root of 36 is 5? I choose to believe the square root of 36 is 7, because that works for me. To say my opinion is incorrect is intolerant!

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    27. Re:When will people learn by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      You can be bad at math without being worse than average.

      But you still have a standard there you're not admitting: your evidently unrealistic expectations.

    28. Re:When will people learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trust a nerd to read really extra dirty fetish into an off-the-cuff remark. I'll wager I was posting on /. before you hit puberty, junior.

    29. Re:When will people learn by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      It's only 2010. We haven't had half a century yet :)

    30. Re:When will people learn by colonelquesadilla · · Score: 1

      The point is that a large number of people are incapable of making rational decisions in cases like this, and that is partially because of a lack of ability to quickly and easily calculate the risk and potential benefit involved.

      --
      It's either false dichotomies, or the terrorists win, you decide.
    31. Re:When will people learn by houghi · · Score: 1

      I think what he means to say is that about half the people is below the 50% avarage. That is a lot.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    32. Re:When will people learn by precariousgray · · Score: 1
      --
      not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
    33. Re:When will people learn by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      Tupperware is a terrible example. It's not glass.

      Once they have you comparing different types of plastic, you've been suckered. Glass is cheap anyway...it comes free with beer, for example.

      Try a pyrex bowl. That's small, they have bigger ones.

      Or the ultimate cheapness: Ball jars.

    34. Re:When will people learn by Teancum · · Score: 1

      If you happened to be one of the initial "founders" of the MLM or are a close buddy to the founder and are in on the scheme from the beginning, yeah, you can live a cushy life without much effort. Otherwise, good luck with that.

      Of course that could be said about any sort of scheme.

      What is sad, however, is that the effort to put together most schemes generally take more time, effort, and money to get started than doing a "legitimate" business. The problem is that the mentality of those who are planning schemes is that they are constantly looking for that one big score, and occasionally through circumstances and the chaos that we call life that sometimes these parasites on society do get lucky.

      If you add in the ruined lives from those who have been scamming along the way, the end result for society as a whole is negative in most of these schemes, and it is the guys at the bottom that as a whole we need to be concerned about, not the sleaze at the top.

    35. Re:When will people learn by sorak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People in financial trouble tend to get desperate and throw all logic out the door. I got taken for an incredibly stupid scam, once. It was one of those "The post office is hiring. Pay us for the training kit" scams, and I cannot stress hard enough that it was stupid. But, I had an unemployed wife and a baby to support, and I had just lost my job.

      Things seemed desperate, and in those situations, people tend to throw logic out the door. So, the problem isn't just that most people are stupid, and some of us are smart. It is that our critical thinking skills are often impaired when we are at our most vulnerable, and that is the truly pathetic thing about these scams. Get rich quick schemes are not taking advantage of the people who have some money and want more. They're most effective when taking advantage of the people on fixed incomes, the unemployed, and anybody else who doesn't know how the next bill will be paid. They are profiting by kicking those of us who are already down.

    36. Re:When will people learn by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      You're not describing postmodernism--you're describing religion.

    37. Re:When will people learn by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Well, 50% of the population has below average intelligence, by definition. What is even scarier to think about is that they vote too (in places with elected representatives).

      The problems with most geeks is that they tend to hang out in circles where there are substantial social filters to weed out those with lower intelligence, and you tend to think that average intelligence is somebody who can do a derivative in their sleep and understands the concept of a coefficient of friction from a mathematical viewpoint.

      Nothing personal, but the average NASCAR fan would be surprised to learn that the race cars they are watching even have brakes, much less try to understand how the coefficient would apply to how a driver can avoid a crash and how those brake systems interact under racing conditions. Still, a geek can appreciate the wonder of how a bunch of cars can crash together at 200+ mph and that the drivers can live to see another day.

      I had a friend who said this interesting philosophical statement: A mathematician can certainly appreciate fine art, but it is an exceptionally rare artist who can appreciate an elegant proof. Q.E.D.

    38. Re:When will people learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, my experience with Melaleuca tells me that this is not the case. I logically evaluated MLM schemes, and the "bottom of the pyramid" is only a threat after a significant portion of the population has bought into the scheme. Enrolling people below you is most difficult when penetration of the community is less than 10% (because people are sceptical) or higher than 90% (because people are scarce and competition is high). The easiest range would have to be 50-70% because people, seeing the MLM's success, are afraid they'll be at the bottom. Luckily, MLMs have never gotten this far.

      Additionally, attitude towards the MLM as a business doesn't seem to focus on ripping other people off and being dishonest; of course, this company actually has physical products that it sells with a claimed "95% re-order rate". The company pays back about 65% of the product revenue to its members and sells things that you would buy anyway at about the same price (or, even less if you buy month-to-month!) for a superior product.

      I would know, I'm MUCH smarter than average and I've found that based on the data I can get on them that my conclusions are logically sound; Melaleuca is worth it.

      But seriously, Melaleuca pays a lot of cash to make its reputation positive on the web, and there are no other good sources for digging the dirt on the company. Therefore, people interested in the opportunity have to evaluate it based off the information that melaleuca is willing to give you... and these are the numbers:
      - $29.95 unperishable entrance to the business with no needs for further investment. This is for the well priced information packages.
      - A scheme that encourages the "high people" to help you by limiting the number of members allowed "directly under you"
      - A scheme that allows you to pitch to people who are just interested in the products
      - A 95% re-order rate and a believable breakdown of the production costs of the business, where they claim that the 65% they pay back to members is in place of the 65% your normal house-hold brand spends on advertising and middlemen.
      - Over 350 products... which you can't verify the quality of due to no third-party oversight and lack of trial versions. Let's not forget that Melaleuca products are "much more concentrated, so less is more!" forcing you to buy much more of the product at once than you would spend otherwise and forcing you to buy longer into trying their products than for the store-bought equivilants.
      - 13 patents, because their technology is modern and powerful and, of course, better than your store bought brands.
      - Members, eligible for up to 20% in discounts, allow you to save more money... if you spend an average of $100 or more a month on "wellness products".
      - As-a-business members must also buy "35 points" of product... averaging about $100 a month, for personal use only.
      - You must make a back-up order when you sign-up. If you forget to order a month, the back-up order is made automatically. What a great feature for boosting their ill-defined "re-order rate".
      - It is not made clear how much 'non-members' must buy per month in product.

    39. Re:When will people learn by jonadab · · Score: 1

      Glass is good for some things (e.g., baking), but it isn't nearly as good for most of the things Tupperware is mostly used for, e.g., putting leftovers in the fridge.

      And believe me, I know all about Ball jars. We can about a hundred quarts of pasta sauce a year, plus fruits and jellies and applesauce and various other things. Things you can't buy at the store, because the level of quality would make you want to slit your wrists.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    40. Re:When will people learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take that wager! I entered puberty in the Seventies, so, unless you managed to build a time machine and transport Slashdot's servers back to that decade, you lose :)

      As for my post, it was intended to be a humorous response to the way your post parsed, and I should have tried harder to make that more apparent since droll humor in the form of such scatological comments (*grin*) doesn't convey itself all that well in writing, especially these days.

    41. Re:When will people learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No worries, I've got a thick skin. Oh, wait, is that some kind of sex thing? Shit! Are we enough offtopic yet?

  3. People never learn by cytoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A simple adage - "If it's too good to be true, it probably is". People never seem to learn it. Always falling for scams. I'm not surprised.

    1. Re:People never learn by broken_chaos · · Score: 1

      But maybe the next one is real.

    2. Re:People never learn by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Bah. Next thing you'll say is that lotteries are a waste of money, and horoscopes aren't real.

      Bet you don't visit church on Sundays, either.

    3. Re:People never learn by vux984 · · Score: 3, Informative

      A simple adage - "If it's too good to be true, it probably is". People never seem to learn it. Always falling for scams. I'm not surprised.

      it -probably- is. Even you hedged your wording, because even you know sometimes it just really is as good as the promise. Lots of stuff seems too good to be true, but delivers. Enough that its often hard for even a fairly intelligent and rational person to really know.

      I mean, who'd believe linux, or bsd, or asterix, or postgresql, or apache, ... were all free. I've met people who were skeptical, who wanted to know what the catch was...

    4. Re:People never learn by Lord+Dreamshaper · · Score: 1

      I mean, who'd believe linux, or bsd, or asterix, or postgresql, or apache, ... were all free

      They aren't, they're just part of the most subtle pyramid scheme ever...they've even hooked you!

      --
      When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
    5. Re:People never learn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ASTERISK!
      Bloody hell you'd think that after years on the market people would learn how to spell it.

    6. Re:People never learn by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "People never seem to learn it. Always falling for scams. I'm not surprised."

      Even if people did learn it, there are new suckers being born every minute. See also: Construction in earthquake/flood areas, regulations on financial industries, international bodies to avoid war, etc.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    7. Re:People never learn by siloko · · Score: 1

      Bah. Next thing you'll say is that lotteries are a waste of money . . .

      Depends what your expectations are. I don't expect to win but can't help the excited anticipation which I get when I check the numbers. That excitement cost me one pound. Good investment if you ask me.

    8. Re:People never learn by colonelquesadilla · · Score: 1

      And in america people pay money to lose pounds all the time!

      --
      It's either false dichotomies, or the terrorists win, you decide.
    9. Re:People never learn by dkf · · Score: 1

      I mean, who'd believe linux, or bsd, or asterix, or postgresql, or apache, ... were all free. I've met people who were skeptical, who wanted to know what the catch was...

      The catch is that they typically require some effort and expertise on your part to make them useful. They're not generally fully-productized turnkey solutions.

      Some of us like it that way by comparison with the alternatives, but the catch is there.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    10. Re:People never learn by vlm · · Score: 1

      A fact is that poor people love to buy lotto tickets ... using money.

      Another fact is that the US is perhaps the only country in the world, where the poorer you are, the fatter you are, because of food quality issues.

      Combine those two facts, and the parent post, and the GP post, and I think I see an interesting weight loss program developing... Weight loss lotto... Every pound below "obese" equals one govt sponsored lotto ticket.

      My idea is probably the best "healthcare system" idea in several years... certainly better than the cruddy ideas out of DC.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  4. Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me a call, I got a great car to sell you.

    1. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swap for a bridge?

  5. A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fools and their money are soon parted. And, frankly, I rephrase that as "Fools and their money money SHOULD be soon parted."

    There is nothing worse than fools holding onto capital and they deserve to be separated from it.

    1. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, I need the fool's money so I can give it to the government as taxes so they can give it back to the fools. Wait - that doesn't make sense does it?

    2. Re:A fool and his money... by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Funny

      If the government was to use scams instead of tax, it could be funded completely by fools! ...Then I realised this is already the case.

    3. Re:A fool and his money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We call them "lotteries".

    4. Re:A fool and his money... by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      True, I need the fool's money so I can give it to the government as taxes so they can give it back to the fools. Wait - that doesn't make sense does it?

      Open a church like the rest of us have...Paying taxes is bullshit...

    5. Re:A fool and his money... by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

      More like tax write-offs, deductions, offshore accounts and phantom headquarters.

      That's right. You, I, we are all fools.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    6. Re:A fool and his money... by cortesoft · · Score: 1

      This is why I think Lotteries should only be used to fund math education... you will know the funds aren't needed any more when you stop making money.

    7. Re:A fool and his money... by colonelquesadilla · · Score: 1

      don't forget inflation,it amounts to a tax.

      --
      It's either false dichotomies, or the terrorists win, you decide.
    8. Re:A fool and his money... by sp0tter · · Score: 1

      More like tax write-offs, deductions, offshore accounts and phantom headquarters. That's right. You, I, we are all fools.

      I could not have put it more succinct myself

      --
      you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future--or else you'll get all scratchy
  6. Breaking News: Pyramid Schemes are Sketchy? by Sparkycat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Salespeople were promised payment based on how many other salespeople they signed up to the program, although few appear to have received payment."

    The only newsworthy part of this is that Slashdot and others thought this business model was newsworthy in the first place.

    It's a Pyramid Scheme with the phrase "Cell Phone" tacked on, anyone who bought into this deserved what they got.

    1. Re:Breaking News: Pyramid Schemes are Sketchy? by Macrat · · Score: 1

      It works for Amway.

    2. Re:Breaking News: Pyramid Schemes are Sketchy? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Amway actually sells products. They're a bit odd, but for a lonely bachelor or housewife, having a sales person turn up at your door and let you know about deals on things you actually use like plates and dishes and paper towels can be helpful. And for a _modest_ percentage of households, it can be a few hours of work a week that feeds that fourth kid.

      It's the high pressure "make your friends into salespeople, that makes you money" that makes them an addictive and much hated pyramid scheme. But they've managed to stay in business because they actually sell a useful set of products, and they don't engage in the wholesale fraud of the "laundry balls" or the "Mangosteen Juice" or "Scientology E-Meters".

    3. Re:Breaking News: Pyramid Schemes are Sketchy? by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      And for a _modest_ percentage of households, it can be a few hours of work a week that feeds that fourth kid.

      It's the high pressure "make your friends into salespeople, that makes you money" that makes them an addictive and much hated pyramid scheme. But they've managed to stay in business because they actually sell a useful set of products, and they don't engage in the wholesale fraud of the "laundry balls" or the "Mangosteen Juice" or "Scientology E-Meters".

      Feeds the fourth kid? Not hardly. A few months ago I saw an Amway commercial and when I did the math -- Amway's claimed revenue divided by the number of people they claim to have selling their products ("we help xx milion people own their own business") -- it works out to an average of $2600 per person PER YEAR ($216.66 per month). That's gross sales. What do you suppose their net is?

    4. Re:Breaking News: Pyramid Schemes are Sketchy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing the stuff they sell? Probably 1800/year or $150/month, although a good chunk goes to Amway and taxes(if they pay them properly). Foisting taxes onto the "not an employee" makes many things profitable for a company.

  7. The human condition... by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you market to people's hopes & dreams, you will always find suckers for your hollow ploys.

    Cosmetics are generally useless from a utilitarian standpoint, and yet mass marketing pushes that shit out to the female demographic as if they would evaporate without it, and now we're stuck with the fucking Barbie generation. Give somebody the hope that you can fulfill their dream, and you will have their wallet.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:The human condition... by Sepultura · · Score: 1

      This is off the general topic but... cosmetics do serve a utilitarian/practical purpose. They help women attract mates (and to a lesser extend friends). You might say it's a concocted purpose, that the majority of women in many parts of the earth don't use much/any cosmetics and yet have no social problems, but you'll find that their societies don't emphasize the use of cosmetics as being attractive. In some cultures bandaging childrens heads/feet/etc. is/was practiced, causing deformities which were concerned attractive/normal. Individuals without those characteristics would be seen as less attractive if not ugly.

      It's similar to the use of deodorant. Again, not strictly needed, but see how many people hang around with you when your stench kills nearby trees.
      Richard Pryor did a hilarious routine about this very issue in Live on the Sunset Strip after returning from Africa.

    2. Re:The human condition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your initial assertion is quite correct, but the example you provide is a bit weak, since (a) people who are perceived as being more attractive generally get treated more favourably by others and (b) people are known to have been using makeup for the last 5,000+ years.

    3. Re:The human condition... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      but you'll find that their societies don't emphasize the use of cosmetics as being attractive.

      That's rather the point, isn't it? Society -- in this case *heavily* influenced by marketing tactics -- does emphasize it. The question is, without those tactics, would the emphasis still be there? I would question that very much. (

      Here's the interesting thing about it. Personally I find makeup distasteful... and most males I know do as well (though of course we tolerate it..). This led me to wonder, "Okay.... well if men don't really care to see their women in a ton fo makeup on a regular basis, what other motivation is there?"

      Asking among female friends revealed two motivations*: for the younger crowd, it was about being more "mature" and sometimes for attracting men. For anyone out of their twenties, they want to look "put together" to other women. Basically concerned that other women would look down on them for *not* wearing it.

      *Based only on my sample size of about 10 makeup-wearing women over several years, obviously not universally true... I'd love to hear the slashdotian woman's perspective, both makeup-wearing and non-makeup-wearing...

    4. Re:The human condition... by radish · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cosmetics have been a part of human life for a lot longer than Estee Lauder. From the Ancient Egyptians to the Greeks, to the Native Americans - the idea of applying colour to your face or other parts of your body for one reason or another has been prevalent for thousands of years. Typically it's done to influence others' view of you - to find you attractive, or scary, or powerful. You may not consider that utilitarian, but do you dress entirely in hessian sack cloth? No? Then are your clothes strictly utilitarian?

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:The human condition... by twidarkling · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd love to hear the slashdotian woman's perspective,

      And then you'll get the perspective of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, right?

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    6. Re:The human condition... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      but do you dress entirely in hessian sack cloth? No? Then are your clothes strictly utilitarian?

      My T-Shirts and Jeans, made in Pakistan / China, are cheaper than a sack... In fact I've been considering the price of coin-operated laundry, and how close we are to the point that buying new clothes every week becomes cheaper than washing them...

      Of course we've far since gone past that point when you count full-service laundry, particularly that found in hotels...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:The human condition... by scottzak · · Score: 1

      Dreams suck.

      --
      No more cults.
    8. Re:The human condition... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I'd love to hear the slashdotian woman's perspective,

      And then you'll get the perspective of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, right?

      I swore I saw one once. But it could have been a dream.

    9. Re:The human condition... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      "Okay.... well if men don't really care to see their women in a ton fo makeup on a regular basis, what other motivation is there?"

      I think you're confusing "use of makeup" with the "use paint roller on eyelids" thing that some do. Good use of makeup goes almost completely unnoticed in the same way good editing in a movie goes almost completely unnoticed.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    10. Re:The human condition... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but too me that seems to depend on whether you give more than a cursory look. I've heard the same things from others, yet it's still pretty apparent when even someone described as wearing makeup correctly is wearing makeup. Not a quick glance, but any kind of significant look within 10 feet or so.

    11. Re:The human condition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have yet to see a brand of makeup that I couldn't smell if I was close enough, even if it was expertly applied.

  8. Real original by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    They were just copying Equinox's business plan. You'd think people would know better by now.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  9. You know what's funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have T-mobile unlimited flexpay. It's a no contract, month to month service. while I only have 500 minutes, I do have unlimited data usage. I pay $75/month for the service, and use skype extensively. Usage limits? I've never run into them. This month I've pushed 7GB on my Nokia N900 over the 3G connection, and nobody at T-mobile has ever complained to me or my service been cut off.

    Sure, I pay a premium over MetroPCS and Cricket, but I get a decent service that I can use with a GSM smartphone.

  10. could it be? by troll+-1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Salespeople were promised payment based on how many other salespeople they signed up to the program.

    And were those other people promised payment based on how many others they signed up? Was the payment structure a hierarchical top down system like a pyramid?

  11. Our Old Friend by cosm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that you Amway?

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Our Old Friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Amway has a real product. May not be worth what it costs, but there's goods changing hands.

      That's more than we can say about these guys.

    2. Re:Our Old Friend by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Damn the link you provided requires Flash, I am so sorry to miss important opportunities... ;-(

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:Our Old Friend by cosm · · Score: 1

      True. I don't think vaporware can be classified as a concrete noun. Grammar Nazi's?

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    4. Re:Our Old Friend by dubbreak · · Score: 1

      Is that you Amway?

      Or maybe Quixtar?

      I had a girlfriend trick me into going to a quixtar meeting when they first started it up (forget the ploy she used, but she definitely wasn't up front about where we were going). Part way into the opening pitch I click, "WTF, you brought me to a amway meeting?!"

      Her: "No, it's quixtar. It's totally different."

      Me: "Ah.... no. It's not."

      She was an english major so I forgave her for being tricked into joining a MLM scam.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    5. Re:Our Old Friend by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      There's no apostrophe in "Grammar Nazis."

      Further, vaporware would probably be an abstract noun.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    6. Re:Our Old Friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She was an english major so I forgave her for being tricked into joining a MLM scam.

      So, what you're saying is that the sex was non-existent?

    7. Re:Our Old Friend by dubbreak · · Score: 1

      She was an english major so I forgave her for being tricked into joining a MLM scam.

      So, what you're saying is that the sex was non-existent?

      Nope. I'm saying I forgave her for the stupidity and wrote it off as an english major thing (if she was smart she'd be doing a degree that could get her a job, or at least be planning on grad school). It's amazing how much stupid one can put up with in exchange for sex.

      "You did what?!"

      "Never mind just come to bed."

      "OK"

      Of course I married someone smart. It's great that the sex is good now, but you have to plan for your future because at the end of the day and when your libidos have hit rock bottom what you really need someone who can hold an intelligent conversation.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
  12. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...salespeople who paid a monthly fee to be part of a sales program.

    Say. No. More.

    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what? it goes on all the time! ever head of franchise fees? that's right, you pay for the right to shill processed smeat for ronald mcdonald.

    2. Re:WTF? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      You pay for the right to use the brand name and products, while also tying into the marketing that they provide. Your profits don't rely on how many people you've gotten to open their own franchises.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  13. Don't infer hostility from a lawsuit. by MarkvW · · Score: 5, Informative

    Post makes the point that Global Verge is suing Zer01.

    Don't infer hostility!!!!!

    Collusive (friendly) lawsuits are a fraudulent way one person can transfer money to another person (himself?), thereby dodging legitimate creditors.

    Fyi.

    1. Re:Don't infer hostility from a lawsuit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $FaithInTheWorld--;

    2. Re:Don't infer hostility from a lawsuit. by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Collusive (friendly) lawsuits are a fraudulent way one person can transfer money to another person (himself?), thereby dodging legitimate creditors.

      I thought this was the way it worked in all lawsuits. Someone sues, and money is trasferred to lawyers, regardless of anything else.

    3. Re:Don't infer hostility from a lawsuit. by Purist · · Score: 0

      Legal check kiting? :-)

      --
      I used to fear clowns...but I'm discovering that chimps are far, far, worse.
  14. Re:Slut and a whore by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter, but it appears to have been shoved up some guy's ass in goatse #3. I don't want that copy, TYVM.

  15. MLM is too polite a term by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Scam is right. Multilevel marketing makes it almost seem legitimate, which apparently it wasn't.

    BTW - I'm using the word "apparently" in the "please don't sue me" sense of the word.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:MLM is too polite a term by siloko · · Score: 0, Troll

      BTW - I'm using the word "apparently" in the "please don't sue me" sense of the word.

      unfortunately gazumped by the proceeding "Scam is right." comment. My letter's in the post.

    2. Re:MLM is too polite a term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how does multilevel marketing sound legitimate? it contains the word 'marketing', which is even worse than 'scam'

    3. Re:MLM is too polite a term by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      What? Are you scared? Of a bunch of criminals?
      There I said it: MLM = pyramid scheme = fraud/scam = criminals. Always. Period.
      It‘s the whole and only point. And they not only know it, but that’s the whole and only reason they did it. Also always. Also Period.

      Come and try to sue me, fuckers. I’ll rip your balls off trough your throat!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  16. Need more coops by porter235 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Instead of multi tier marketing schemes, we just need more cooperatives: owned and run by members, for the benefit of the members!

  17. Piramid scheme anybody? by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    recruiting salespeople who paid a monthly fee to be part of a sales program. [...] Salespeople were promised payment based on how many other salespeople they signed up to the program,

    That has pyramid scheme written all over it. I wonder why it took so long and why no legal action was taken against them. Or are these scams legal in the US?

    The moment somebody comes to me and tells me I can earn a lot of money, but first I need to pay a bit up front will NOT be my new employer. The will NOT be my business partner. They will be sorted under scammer. If I need to recruit people and payed on basis of how many people I can enlist, I will NOT work for that company (unless I am HR.)

    Why were they not closed sooner? Even without the links to other dubious companies, this sounds like a first class pyramid scam.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Pyramid schemes are only legal in the US if they are being run by the government.

      The most popular government pyramid scheme is called "social security," where the payout you receive after retirement depends on how many additional payers you and everyone else bring into the system throughout your lifetimes.

    2. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The (sic) will NOT be my business partner.

      So you expect to go into partnership with someone without putting in any equity? If you don't put something in, you're not a partner -you're an employee.

    3. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SS money is actually invested. Collective insurance isn't a "pyramid scheme" either.

    4. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the expected returns on the investment does not meet the expected payouts and the difference is made up by new contributors then it is by definition a pyramid scheme.

      Social security funds are invested in treasuries. The expected returns on those are crap (since interest rates are being held low). And of course the Treasury doesn't have the money to pay back those bonds anyway - the government balance sheet is in the red. Of course it can print it, but that leads to a whole bunch of other problems.

      What would happen if SS contributions were cut to 0 tomorrow - no more contributions to social security (the equivalent on no one earning any taxable income). Could SS make all the payments it is on the hook for now? What about when the baby boomers all retire? If not then it is a pyramid scheme since it is relying on future contributions not investments to make payments.

    5. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Well, pyramid schemes are not legal. However, a multi-level marketing "scheme" is, as there's actually product being delivered through the network of people tricked into selling it and/or getting people to sell it for them. Since no product ended up being produced in this case, this was a pyramid, and is illegal. It's a fairly fine distinction here in the states.

    6. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      That's not true at all.

      If you have the skills/contacts/whatever that someone wants they could employ you or the could offer you an equity stake and some control over the company.

      You don't have to actually put money down to be a business partner. It's the usual case of course, but there's no requirement for it.

    7. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      I think you're abusing the definition of pyramid scheme. What you're really looking for is "poorly managed system." Now, excuse me, I need to get "pyramid scheme" to a doctor to see how bad your abuse was. You'll be hearing from its lawyer.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    8. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      If you have the skills/contacts/whatever that someone wants they could employ you or the could offer you an equity stake and some control over the company.

      Taking a partner on for their customer or vendor contact lists opens you up to a lawsuit, and to having to basically turn over your company to their former employer. Do you really want to engineer your own liquidation?

      Taking them on as an employee is only slightly less risky.

      This isn't just the case in high tech. From industrial rubber products to fried chicken outlets (just to cite 2 local lawsuits) and everything in between, it's a really stupid move.

      And in today's economy, there's enough people with the skills in most areas that offers of equity and partial control simply aren't needed - unless you're already so shaky that that's all you can really offer them.

    9. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I think you're abusing the definition of pyramid scheme. What you're really looking for is "poorly managed system." Now, excuse me, I need to get "pyramid scheme" to a doctor to see how bad your abuse was. You'll be hearing from its lawyer.

      NO, SSA isn't a poorly managed system. And while it's not totally unfair to call it a pyramid scheme, they're pretty up-front about it. The laws governing SSA pretty much state right out that you're paying in now to support current recipients, and when you need a payout by and by, new people will be paying in to support you.

      Of course, there's those misleading letters they send out every couple years which mention "your investment" in SSA. Untruthful, at the least.

      Note that once upon a time, when SSA was first created, it was sold to the American people as an "investment" into their individual retirements. That's because back then, it was considered embarrassing to be on the dole - and SSA is basically the dole by another name (and restricted to the elderly).

      Nowadays, that particular form of embarrassment has been eliminated (mostly) from the American psyche.

      Oh, and note, for the record, that this is the first year that the SSA has taken in less than it will pay out. Used to be estimated that that wouldn't happen till 2017 or 2018. They do expect that they'll be net positive for a couple years mid-decade, but till then, and after that, the SSA will no longer be usable to hide the size of the deficit....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter if it's a stupid move or an unlikely move, it's a possibility and hence your "If you don't put something [equity] in, you're not a partner -you're an employee" isn't true

    11. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      If it's not legal, then you're a partner in crime - not exactly the same thing. If that's what floats your boat, that's your problem, not mine. We could also claim that you can never have to work a day in your life - just commit 3 felonies in a "3 strikes" state. Somehow, I don't think people would buy that as a valid argument.

    12. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      It's not just poorly managed, it's impossible for it to do what it claims to do even with great management (well short of magical prescient management).

      But yes pyramid scheme isn't quite true, because the government can change the rules whenever they want to. It is a pyramid scheme under the current rules - it wasn't when it began, but things have changed such as life expectancies.

    13. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      So now you are claiming it is illegal to be a partner in a business without putting money up front into the business?

      Your statement: "If you don't put something [equity] in, you're not a partner -you're an employee" is simply 100% false, incorrect, a lie.

      Seriously, you want to stick by that claim? Do you have a legal reference for it???

      [Note I wasn't thinking vendor/client lists when I said "contacts" you invented that.]

    14. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by dkf · · Score: 1

      Taking a partner on for their customer or vendor contact lists opens you up to a lawsuit, and to having to basically turn over your company to their former employer. Do you really want to engineer your own liquidation?

      I'd have thought that you'd generally only be at risk if you poached someone from another employer. If they're no longer employed by them (and there's no enforceable non-compete agreement in place) then there's really no comeback by the ex-employer. After all, if they really wanted to keep their former employee's expertise then they would still be employing them.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    15. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by s1lverl0rd · · Score: 1

      I don't think SS is a fitting abreviation for social security.

    16. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      How was it different when it began?

      Wikipedia: Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages

    17. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by sorak · · Score: 1

      The problem is that, if they had come up with a viable product, then they would be a legitimate business and the people scammed would be either investors, or retailers. The only difference between them and a hot dog vendor, or a guy who sells cellphones at the mall, would be the location.

    18. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Demographics were such that wasn't going to be a problem.

      Basically life expectancies were lower, so people would be taking from the system for a shorter period of time on average.

      And there wasn't a "bulge" in the population distribution to magnify that problem.

      Basically it wasn't a pyramid, it was a rectangle - you didn't need more people starting to pay in than there were people stopping paying in.

      Some entering the workforce at 18 in 1940 had a life expectancy of about 68. Retirement age was 65. So they are paying the payroll tax to fund the thing for 47 years and claiming benefits for 3. So 16 years of paying for every year of claiming.

      Now, someone entering the workforce at 18 has a life expectancy of 77. Retirement age is 67. So they are paying into the system for 49 years and claiming benefits for 10. So 5 years of paying for every year of claiming.

    19. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      A contract has several parts:

      Two parties legally capable of formulating a contract

      The object of the contract

      The consideration ("thing given") by each side;

      A contract that is one-sided (that you don't put anything into, or that is disproportionate to the benefits) is easily voidable, and WILL be voided by outside parties in, say, a bankruptcy, where the legal presumption will be that it was made to defraud the estate of the bankrupt. It will also be voided by your "partner" should they decide that they want to. They will point out that the contract is too one-sided, that while the intent may have been to form a partnership, in fact it was defective because your contribution was not nearly in proportion to the purported rights and benefits you accrued.

      TANSTAAFL

    20. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Even with no formal non-compete, the former employee is not allowed to use the previous employers customer and supplier lists. They are not the employee's property - they're part of the "work-for-hire" product.

      Hope this clears it up a bit. It's a land-mine out there, and nowhere near as simple as things used to be.

    21. Re:Piramid scheme anybody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, yeah, you're right. Let's just go with the brilliant Bush plan of dumping social security and having everyone invest their retirement money in the stock market. You know, the one that was being pushed right before the massive downturn where all the small time investors lost their shirts. Yeah, that was a great idea.
      It's really annoying listening to people going on about how social security is a scam, blah blah, tired old rhetoric, blah blah. You act as if there's something inherently wrong with the idea. That's not the case. It's a good idea, the problem is that social security is a big fund under government control and therefore all the corrupt (not necessarily corrupt in the sense that they take bribes, that's only one form of corruption, making stupid short term choices because they know that the consequences will never catch up to them personally is also a form of corruption) and/or stupid politicians see it as something to raid when they need money. You know, those guys who think that it's ok to run a budget deficit EVERY SINGLE YEAR for DECADES! Those people, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, neo-con, etc. It doesn't seem to matter, they all do it (although the republicans seem to manage to simultaneously be worse than the Democrats at keeping a balanced budget while simultaneously getting their constituency to believe that they're better).

  18. You must help spread the word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People who fall for these scams don't know any better. I'd like to change that. Please mail me to join my award-winning program: "MLM Schemes Exposed", and help spread the word. Every person you get to join my program will earn you 10% of their membership fee, and every person they recruit will earn you a further 10% of the 90% they pass onto you. Together we can spread the word: MLM schemes are evil and dangerous. Don't get caught in one!

  19. A typosquatter is reeling them in by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ZERO1MOBILE.COM
    Registrar: ENOM, INC.
    Whois Server: whois.enom.com
    Referral URL: http://www.enom.com/
    Name Server: NS1.PARKED.COM
    Name Server: NS2.PARKED.COM
    Status: clientTransferProhibited
    Updated Date: 07-mar-2010
    Creation Date: 13-mar-2009
    Expiration Date: 13-mar-2011

    The only difference is that it's O1 (the letter 'O'), not 01

    Seems to me that, to add insult to injury, the typo-squatter picked the better domain name to begin with...

  20. Paying Money to Work by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 1

    ...and the two companies began recruiting salespeople who paid a monthly fee to be part of a sales program.

    Any time that you're required to pay money to work - and I mean this outside of regular expenses such as supplies and travel, etc. - it's probably a good idea to turn around and run as far away as you can. A monthly fee to be part of a sales program? This is even worse than the typical MLM such as Primerica or Quixtar. At least those programs offer some sort of good or service in return, despite having an initial start-up cost.

    But to collect money like that on a monthly basis and to vanish?

  21. This is why I read Slashdot. Thanks OP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best GNU's on Slashdot all month...

  22. Re:Slut and a whore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ahahahaha this is funny!