The news part is the fact that it's actively being discussed on a site like Slashdot. Here's the note I just sent Snopes via their web contact form:
As you are probably already aware, Slashdot is running a story (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/29/0047236) about malware being served up from advertisements hosted on your site. This malware appears to be in the form of misleading popup ads for Zango (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zango | http://www.zango.com), which is a company with a long-standing track record of deceptive business practices (reference FTC settlement here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/11/zango.shtm [which they have mostly failed to learn from]). These ads are being served by the Fastclick ad network, which is operated by ValueClick Media (http://www.valueclickmedia.com/). I strongly object to any site profiting from these sort of irresponsible ads, and would like to see prompt action on the part of Snopes to remedy this situation. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
This stuff isn't abuse, although it may qualify as "producing a crappy product." How many times have you made a spelling error on a business document? Were you abusing your intended audience?
Heavily used open source software, including GCC, doesn't always work as it should. Are the authors just downright nasty, abusive people? I don't think so, man. You need some sedatives. Sorry about my abusive nature.
Um, you've managed to compare Microsoft to slaveowners. While not *completely* out of the realm of imagination, for many of the "enslaved" their condition is actually completely voluntary. There are alternatives; my wife saw Ubuntu, fell in love with it, and refuses to use Windows now. Which is great, because I was able to free up that hard drive space. And she knows virtually nothing about how computers work.
As for this quote:
That was the reason for slavery, too; just rich people wanting to feel that they are superior. Which grade are you in, third or fourth? The awful fact that people could profit from ownership of another human being, much as one might profit from a sled dog, was the reason for slavery, for just about as long as mankind has existed. Was it a horrible institution? Sure. Did the average slaveholder base his practice of slave ownership on some warm fuzzy feeling of "I'm so awesome?" Well, no. Landowners increased their wealth by owning slaves who increased the profits of their business endeavors, not the other way around. By the way, the majority of American slaveholders in the South weren't all that well off by comparison. Why don't you spend a little less time on the heartfelt backyard historical psychoanalysis and a little more working to educate yourself properly?
Oh, don't get me wrong... I'm not citing Asperger's as an excuse for Fischer being a complete prick. I simply pointed out that the GP is dead wrong in his/her assertion that Asperger's doesn't qualify as a "real disorder."
I think you missed my point. I'm pointing to both (1) possible cases of mutual back-scratching, with the public being duped, and (2) the very real possibility that the powers that push these cases may not have the public's best interest in mind, but their own (although the public may benefit in some way, it may not gain the most just outcome). The DOJ may be a government organization, but their employees draw a paycheck based on their perceived performance, just like everyone else in this country.
I'm not condoning Microsoft's behavior, which is frequently detestable. I am saying that people shouldn't blindly put their faith in the DOJ or any other government body to appropriately address bad behavior, and should hold such organizations accountable when they don't push through to completion (as you so aptly noted regarding the DOJ's past antitrust work). It's not hard to follow this logic, now is it?
I honestly wonder sometimes... what are the real motivating factors behind these lengthy government investigations? It seems sometimes that it's just a case of politicians paying lip service to issues they really know nothing about, in an attempt to appear to the public as though they care about the underlying problems. You could also take the "follow the money" argument; how many peoples' jobs depend on efforts to fine companies for perceived wrongdoings? I'm certainly not trying to paint Microsoft in any sort of rosy light; I find a lot of their business practices to be pretty despicable (and have for a long, long time). I guess I'm saying we should be cautious granting trust to any party in circumstance where the stakes, whether political or financial (or both) are high.
You must have read this highly informative site and applied your intensive research efforts directly to the debunking of this obviously fake planetary fly-by. My hat is off to you; job well done buddy...
Dang it all, even I can't keep from laughing at that page.
While cleartext email might be "as private as a postcard", good luck with mail, and chat sessions, and browser sessions that are encrypted. Also, considering the astronomical amount of data that flies around the Internet every second, good luck to the government if they try to implement any sort of active monitoring system. Of course, this doesn't prevent them from developing heavy-duty data mining solutions to scavenge around in slightly older stuff, but that still presents the problem of aggregating all that once-real-time data in a location for analysis.
So when I go to sell my car (not a Ford, but whatever), and I include photos of it, I'm in the wrong? I've obviously got commercial intent, and would be profiting from the sale.
No, the point is completely valid. Do manufacturers of postcards need to get permission before they sell a product that includes somebody else's logo, such as a particular hotel in Las Vegas? What about commercial photos of college athletes who happen to be wearing a sports product from a particularly famous apparel manufacturer? The discussion would be more intelligent and informed if you'd drink a beer and calm down.
I'm keenly aware of the fact that the Civil War was largely fought over cotton, not slavery. Doesn't make idiotic and offensive jokes concerning anyone's race any more acceptable. Perhaps you could stop judging people you don't know based on a few characters typed in a browser. In other words, shut the hell up.
Maybe Apple cares about the issues surrounding this DRM (i.e. not supporting it), and its customers aren't complaining very loudly for support for it either.
Perhaps someone can find a movie about unlimited stupidity, available on Netflix, that reflects the parent poster's sense of juvenile humor coupled with his lack of intelligent thought. Hope it includes "unlimited streaming" of blood from his head. Anyone up for creating "March of the Trolls"?
Slashdot Mirror
As you are probably already aware, Slashdot is running a story (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/29/0047236) about malware being served up from advertisements hosted on your site. This malware appears to be in the form of misleading popup ads for Zango (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zango | http://www.zango.com), which is a company with a long-standing track record of deceptive business practices (reference FTC settlement here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/11/zango.shtm [which they have mostly failed to learn from]). These ads are being served by the Fastclick ad network, which is operated by ValueClick Media (http://www.valueclickmedia.com/). I strongly object to any site profiting from these sort of irresponsible ads, and would like to see prompt action on the part of Snopes to remedy this situation. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
This stuff isn't abuse, although it may qualify as "producing a crappy product." How many times have you made a spelling error on a business document? Were you abusing your intended audience?
Heavily used open source software, including GCC, doesn't always work as it should. Are the authors just downright nasty, abusive people? I don't think so, man. You need some sedatives. Sorry about my abusive nature.
As for this quote:
That was the reason for slavery, too; just rich people wanting to feel that they are superior. Which grade are you in, third or fourth? The awful fact that people could profit from ownership of another human being, much as one might profit from a sled dog, was the reason for slavery, for just about as long as mankind has existed. Was it a horrible institution? Sure. Did the average slaveholder base his practice of slave ownership on some warm fuzzy feeling of "I'm so awesome?" Well, no. Landowners increased their wealth by owning slaves who increased the profits of their business endeavors, not the other way around. By the way, the majority of American slaveholders in the South weren't all that well off by comparison. Why don't you spend a little less time on the heartfelt backyard historical psychoanalysis and a little more working to educate yourself properly?
I used to spend a lot of time making sure applications would work on *both* Windows and UNIX platforms. Talk about fun...
Oh, don't get me wrong... I'm not citing Asperger's as an excuse for Fischer being a complete prick. I simply pointed out that the GP is dead wrong in his/her assertion that Asperger's doesn't qualify as a "real disorder."
That's not what Wikipedia has to say about it. Or this page, or this one here, or even this one at Yale. But hey, what do they know anyways...
So steroids should be allowed in athletics, too?
I think you missed my point. I'm pointing to both (1) possible cases of mutual back-scratching, with the public being duped, and (2) the very real possibility that the powers that push these cases may not have the public's best interest in mind, but their own (although the public may benefit in some way, it may not gain the most just outcome). The DOJ may be a government organization, but their employees draw a paycheck based on their perceived performance, just like everyone else in this country.
I'm not condoning Microsoft's behavior, which is frequently detestable. I am saying that people shouldn't blindly put their faith in the DOJ or any other government body to appropriately address bad behavior, and should hold such organizations accountable when they don't push through to completion (as you so aptly noted regarding the DOJ's past antitrust work). It's not hard to follow this logic, now is it?
If God didn't intend for man to eat animals, why are they made of tasty cloned meat?
I honestly wonder sometimes... what are the real motivating factors behind these lengthy government investigations? It seems sometimes that it's just a case of politicians paying lip service to issues they really know nothing about, in an attempt to appear to the public as though they care about the underlying problems. You could also take the "follow the money" argument; how many peoples' jobs depend on efforts to fine companies for perceived wrongdoings? I'm certainly not trying to paint Microsoft in any sort of rosy light; I find a lot of their business practices to be pretty despicable (and have for a long, long time). I guess I'm saying we should be cautious granting trust to any party in circumstance where the stakes, whether political or financial (or both) are high.
You must have read this highly informative site and applied your intensive research efforts directly to the debunking of this obviously fake planetary fly-by. My hat is off to you; job well done buddy...
Dang it all, even I can't keep from laughing at that page.
While cleartext email might be "as private as a postcard", good luck with mail, and chat sessions, and browser sessions that are encrypted. Also, considering the astronomical amount of data that flies around the Internet every second, good luck to the government if they try to implement any sort of active monitoring system. Of course, this doesn't prevent them from developing heavy-duty data mining solutions to scavenge around in slightly older stuff, but that still presents the problem of aggregating all that once-real-time data in a location for analysis.
If he weren't dead, I think you'd be better off asking Harry Browne what he'd do...
Who says I bought the vehicle new, and who says there was a loan? I've only taken a loss on a car once.
So when I go to sell my car (not a Ford, but whatever), and I include photos of it, I'm in the wrong? I've obviously got commercial intent, and would be profiting from the sale.
This ought to do it: This car is not what you think it is.
No, the point is completely valid. Do manufacturers of postcards need to get permission before they sell a product that includes somebody else's logo, such as a particular hotel in Las Vegas? What about commercial photos of college athletes who happen to be wearing a sports product from a particularly famous apparel manufacturer? The discussion would be more intelligent and informed if you'd drink a beer and calm down.
We just need to create a pony-censoring plugin for Firefox and Internet Explorer. Here's how it would work.
I guess they'll be going after Wikipedia, the Massachusetts State Police, and lots of folks on AutoTrader.com. I can't wait to see how this works out for Ford.
Also widely known as the Ford "Crustang", "Rustang", "Mustake", and "My Little Pony" where I come from.
The Chinese were using rockets for celebrations long before they thought to fire them at each other in wartime.
I'm keenly aware of the fact that the Civil War was largely fought over cotton, not slavery. Doesn't make idiotic and offensive jokes concerning anyone's race any more acceptable. Perhaps you could stop judging people you don't know based on a few characters typed in a browser. In other words, shut the hell up.
Maybe Apple cares about the issues surrounding this DRM (i.e. not supporting it), and its customers aren't complaining very loudly for support for it either.
Perhaps someone can find a movie about unlimited stupidity, available on Netflix, that reflects the parent poster's sense of juvenile humor coupled with his lack of intelligent thought. Hope it includes "unlimited streaming" of blood from his head. Anyone up for creating "March of the Trolls"?