The biggest problem I see with google is the creation of what I call "Instant Authorities".
I'm active on another site, and post / comment only in Finance and Capital Markets. I've got a MSc in Quantitative Finance, have worked in banking for 20+ years and even teach part time at the Masters level in London. Finance is what I do.
However invariably someone will google up a contradiction an argument or staement, and insist they are correct.
Google is dangerous for the ignorant (actually the stupid) as many folks can't tell the difference between data and information, between noise and knowledge.
Many people lack critical thinking skills. Pre-google these skills had to be much less developed, as access to information was more difficult. Now these skills must be finely honed, due to the huge amount of information google indexes. I've found LOTS of finance stuff on google that is just plain wrong. And yet I'm sure I missed some stuff, accepted as fact some thing that was wrong.
Just because you can find something on google doesn't mean its correct, even if you find it multiple times.
We're on ADSL, not cable so we're treated differently. For example, capping runs during peak periods, 4PM to 12AM.
And although Virgin claims this isn't dial up speeds, when we're capped SpeedTest.net disagrees.
Agreed contention might explain it, but the thing that bugs me about Virgins caps is they stick it to you for seven days - one week! - and without warning.
Blow through your limit (they won't quantify the limit, by the way) one day and you're capped for seven days. Great.
First time around we spent probably 30 minutes on their "pay as you go" support line to find out we'd been capped.
No email. No phone call. Even the first line support staff didn't readily have this information available, or at least weren't familiar with capping.
We've had problems with our broadband being capped down to dial up speeds from time to time (Virgin sux), and I purchased one of those USB Modem sticks.
Speed isn't super fast, about 750MBS, but it does the job.
We're Mac users and have one in each room. We put the USB modem on an iMac, configure it to share its internet connection via airport, and we're happy.
Well, I largely agree, but Virgin won't quantify a download limit.
They suggest that the top 5% of all downloaders each week but capped. I've already pointed out that this means each week, some group will be penalised, but to no avail (well, we are currently looking at alternative ISPs).
So I don't see this working as ISPs currently sell their products (at least in the UK).
Sure, I'd love to be able to grab some 'Net time wherever I am, but the simple fact is (at least in the UK) ISP's are pretty aggressively putting bandwidth caps in place.
I installed a second wireless router upstairs to double the coverage in our flat, but only enabled WEP at the outset (yeh, I know); someone cracked the password and helped themselves to 6GB of download in one week.
Result? Virgin capped us down to dial up speeds for two weeks.
Nice one that, thanks for (ab)using my bandwidth.
So given that some people will abuse a resource, I don't see this happening - at least in the intermediate term.
Actually, they're regulated by OFCOM. Here's what I'm doing.
I've asked several times - in writing that they resolve my problem. They haven't.
I next asked for a "Deadlock reference number"; basically, a letter with a reference number stating that we can't not agree.
At that point Virign got very concerned, to the point of offering up two months free service if I dropped the matter.
I'm not, and will pursue this with OFCOM.
The crux of my complaint is that Virgin was not proactive, informing me of the capping. If they had I certainly would have corrected the problem immediately.
Instead, due to inaction on their part, myself and all the customers on our part of their network, were impacted for a excessive - and avoidable - period of time.
Further, I incurred both direct and indirect expense.
Direct - their pay as you go support line, and the cost of an 18 month subscription to a 3G USB modem service (Voadaphone) so I could work at home during their periods of capping.
Indirect - my time diagnosing the problem.
Finally, I never agreed to seven day capping period. Virgin and Virgin alone decided to cap me for seven days in violation of the AUP.
They did this solely because they've oversold the capacity. No other reason.
So I'm pushing this complaint up to the regulators, OFCOM.
And advise everyone impacted to do the same.
Don't write that PO Box forever; be focused and escalate to Virgin's bosses - OFCOM
We're on Virgin ADSL. About one month ago, someone hacked our WEP and started leaching. It was all my fault - I'd replaced a router, didn't lock down by MAC address, and they locked on.
We noticed slowdowns / issues but didn't call Virgin until my wife determined these always happened after 4PM. This was after some three weeks of slowdowns.
Called Virgin's "pay as you go support", where a technician cheerfully told us we'd been capped due to a violation of AUP.
Ok. Someone had leached our connection. Our fault. But it took TWO weeks to get uncapped.
All this after several weeks of leaching - which impacted ALL customers on our local net mind you - no email, no call, nothing. Until we incurred expense calling their "pay as you go support".
Virgin's shaping is poorly executed, and heavy handed.
"So nice of you to spend your time making it an even crappier place then. Imperialist fucks like you have no shame."
Ah Anonymous Cowards, those noisy and messy few who are proud to show the world they have absolutely no courage of their beliefs, not willing to go on record with their statements. Wonderful integrity.
When I went to Nigeria nobody else would go. That was how I showed the courage of my beliefs.
And to elaborate - I was down there helping banks upgrade their processes and systems, helping them to more fully participate in the global economy. Adding value, in other words. Certainly not looting as you've (so poorly) implied in your obviously well structured and thought out counter argument.
Here's how it works: if African banking institutions don't have adequate safeguards in place - processes, systems & training - then many Western banks won't do business with them. At least not the top tier institutions. Sure, lower grade institutions will do business with them, but extract higher costs because of increased risk driven by a less than western banking infrastructure. Higher cost isn't what a developing nation needs.
Strange how after almost every training seminar I gave folks were inviting me out for meals, to their homes, sending me cards for holidays, and even now I keep in contact with some folks in Lagos.
Maybe it was my American country boy charm, but they certainly didn't consider me an "imperialist fuck". I was often thanks for helping them improve their country. They knew I didn't have to be there, that there were better places for me to do business.
Yes, I like to think the place was a little better after I visited. In my own way I contributed a little. In 50 odd years once Sub Sahara Africa gets its act together I can look back and think "I helped".
I'm in banking, used to work for the Professional Services division of one of the ratings agencies, and at that firm I was the only person willing to travel to Nigeria.
Even considering the people living there are doing the best they can with what they got - I have a lot of respect for the dignity of the ordinary Nigerians just getting on with life - it's a pretty crappy place.
My last two visits there THE POLICE tried to rob me, each time. And ordinary crime is far more pervasive and violent. Recently I read about an armed gang that raided a hotel lobby, fully knowing there would be business visitors checking in & out, with luggage, expensive laptops, mobile phones, cash and passports.
South and East of Lagos in the Niger Delta region, Europeans and Americans must travel with very heavy security, as abductions for ransom are appallingly common, to the point where we were issued cards with instructions for how our abductors could arrange payment. They aren't going to harm you, for many of the gangs operating there it's just a business! Killing is bad business. Returning live hostages yields cash.
Finally, there is a large North / South - Christian / Muslim divide, lots of tension that often erupts into violence.
If Bill Gates was really denied a visa to visit Nigeria, this was more than likely based on fears for his safety and how embarrassing it would be for Nigeria should one of the world's richest men be held for a Software Magnates ransom.
PS - While Africa's most populous country is hardly peaceful and not at all safe, I found it a strangely beautiful and compelling place.
I was hoping to get downloadable versions of all his books that I read as a kid, especially some of the more obscure titles, and as I read them.
Don't get me wrong - this is very cool, but we're not talking the finished product here, but all drafts leading up to the galley that was submitted to the publisher.
So this would be very good to see how the plot, characters & books were developed. But you're not gonna curl up with one of these. I suspect they'll be dense reads.
And expensive! The complete, seven parts of Starship Troopers will set you back $21!!
Consumer Protection Laws are far more rigorous in the UK than the US.
I'm American but have lived in London for ten years. Yes, (some) things are more expensive here. I was curious and looked into it. Excepted from the above link:
When you buy goods from a trader, such as a shop, market stall, garage, etc, you enter into a contract, which is controlled by many laws including, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended by the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002). The law gives you certain implied, or automatic, statutory rights, under this contract.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) says that goods should be :
Of satisfactory
Fit for the purpose
As described
Store policies don't matter; this is the law and retailers must incorporate this cost into selling prices.
I mean, don't they have better things to do with these resources? Seems like the choice of targets tells us a lot about the opportunities - or perhaps lack of opportunities - that this resource (i.e., the Storm botnet) can be put to.
I mean, why not use it to make money? Attacking these sites ain't gonna directly generate any revenue. And one must consider such a resource as having a time value; what is the half life of a bot net anyhow? Is this one, given it's size, likely to be significantly different?
Sure, these scams are easier to pull off it people are uninformed. But how many of the people who are likely to get involved in such scams, upon receipt of these emails, will google first?
""A large percentage [of the vendors] are of a Hispanic nature," Langley said. "Today he's Jose Rodriguez, tomorrow he's Raul something or other, and tomorrow after that he's something else. These people change their identity all the time."
So let me see if I understand this: a Hispanic nature implies one is shift or devious? Wow. You know, if a real police officer said something like this his or her career would be over.
They wouldn't do this in the cash markets and they certainly wouldn't go long Apples shares as you're describing.
No, if this was manipulation (and I agree with you on the point that it probably was), then someone purchased put options, which increase in value as the underlying security, Apple shares in this case, decline.
They'd select the precise contracts to purchase based upon expiration dates and how far out of the money the put options were. Options give the holder immense leverage; I've controlled $3.4 million in shares using only about $20K in capital.
Short selling Apples shares wouldn't be viable as you're back in the cash market again - no leverage.
would offer the ultimate in security for the theft adverse iPod owner.
So why mess about with half measures like fingerprint activation? After all, if you stick it someplace where the sun don't shine, ain't nobody gonna know you're iPodding. Ignoring the obvious question of who the hell would try to steal an anally inserted iPod, who would purchase an (obviously) stolen / used anally insertable iPod?
Why the market for stolen iPods would close up tight.
"What about US proxies or remotely connecting to another machine in the US..."
Here's what troubling. I work in banking, and we do lock down specific systems to specific IPs.
Wanna access the banks internal news page while traveling? No problem, authenticate and away you go. This isn't very critical information, so no IP lockdown is needed. Who cares if something like this leaks?
Wanna access the Funds Transfer function from home? Fine, assuming you've got permissions and the IP has been screened & approved by InfoSec.
Wanna access the Funds Transfer function from a hotel you're at or a public WiFi hotspot? No way. We've got to be cautious as money is involved.
First of all, the fraudsters aren't stupid enough to leave (much) of a paper trail; its common for them to use brokerage accounts compromised by phising. They execute their pump'n'dump via a stolen account, and by the time the dust settles the funds have been transferred.
Secondly, many of these folks operate from abroad and the amounts involved - in any single fraud - just aren't large enough to warrant the intervention of The Feds. Sad but true.
Because the market for these shares is so thin - most of the pink sheets companies will have market caps of less than one million dollars - the criminals can't fraudulently run huge amounts of money. So they perform a large number of smaller transactions.
Short of some organised crime indictment, The Feds won't get involved as the individual amounts are so damn small.
Many will even pass through https traffic. Personally I use MegaProxy so the banks NetCop can't snoop, but even the free sites are feature rich these days.
I'd say just stay away unless your friend can offer up a better explanation.
It doesn't happen in London; why would it happen in New York?
Criminals are the same everywhere. The New York criminal element isn't endowed with some "world class competitive advantage, shees!
No, sorry, I don't see large scale theft of cameras happening in New York as it doesn't already happen in London. Sure, an odd camera here and there, the low-lying fruit (i.e., cameras on 50' poles wont' be stolen at all). Maybe they'll even get away with it who knows?
But keep in mind these cameras are in public places; can't hardly stroll up in your ski mask without totally panicking the public can you?
Point taken about The Feds and efficiency, but also you've got to consider that there aren't any listed options for the Pink Sheet securities these pump'n'dump operators tout.
Correct in theory, but in practice you'd have to find someone willing to lend you the shares to short - after all, the definition of short selling is selling shares you don't own.
Most of these securities, traded on the Pink Sheets, are thinly traded at best. The secondary market is by no means liquid, at least what liquid means when we consider an NYSE or AMEX listed security.
So short selling, while the correct approach, wouldn't be viable in this market.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest problem I see with google is the creation of what I call "Instant Authorities".
I'm active on another site, and post / comment only in Finance and Capital Markets. I've got a MSc in Quantitative Finance, have worked in banking for 20+ years and even teach part time at the Masters level in London. Finance is what I do.
However invariably someone will google up a contradiction an argument or staement, and insist they are correct.
Google is dangerous for the ignorant (actually the stupid) as many folks can't tell the difference between data and information, between noise and knowledge.
Many people lack critical thinking skills. Pre-google these skills had to be much less developed, as access to information was more difficult. Now these skills must be finely honed, due to the huge amount of information google indexes. I've found LOTS of finance stuff on google that is just plain wrong. And yet I'm sure I missed some stuff, accepted as fact some thing that was wrong.
Just because you can find something on google doesn't mean its correct, even if you find it multiple times.
We're on ADSL, not cable so we're treated differently. For example, capping runs during peak periods, 4PM to 12AM.
And although Virgin claims this isn't dial up speeds, when we're capped SpeedTest.net disagrees.
Agreed contention might explain it, but the thing that bugs me about Virgins caps is they stick it to you for seven days - one week! - and without warning.
Blow through your limit (they won't quantify the limit, by the way) one day and you're capped for seven days. Great.
First time around we spent probably 30 minutes on their "pay as you go" support line to find out we'd been capped.
No email. No phone call. Even the first line support staff didn't readily have this information available, or at least weren't familiar with capping.
We've had problems with our broadband being capped down to dial up speeds from time to time (Virgin sux), and I purchased one of those USB Modem sticks.
Speed isn't super fast, about 750MBS, but it does the job.
We're Mac users and have one in each room. We put the USB modem on an iMac, configure it to share its internet connection via airport, and we're happy.
Well, I largely agree, but Virgin won't quantify a download limit.
They suggest that the top 5% of all downloaders each week but capped. I've already pointed out that this means each week, some group will be penalised, but to no avail (well, we are currently looking at alternative ISPs).
So I don't see this working as ISPs currently sell their products (at least in the UK).
And Virgin? Avoid for broadband!
Sure, I'd love to be able to grab some 'Net time wherever I am, but the simple fact is (at least in the UK) ISP's are pretty aggressively putting bandwidth caps in place.
I installed a second wireless router upstairs to double the coverage in our flat, but only enabled WEP at the outset (yeh, I know); someone cracked the password and helped themselves to 6GB of download in one week.
Result? Virgin capped us down to dial up speeds for two weeks.
Nice one that, thanks for (ab)using my bandwidth.
So given that some people will abuse a resource, I don't see this happening - at least in the intermediate term.
Actually, they're regulated by OFCOM. Here's what I'm doing.
I've asked several times - in writing that they resolve my problem. They haven't.
I next asked for a "Deadlock reference number"; basically, a letter with a reference number stating that we can't not agree.
At that point Virign got very concerned, to the point of offering up two months free service if I dropped the matter.
I'm not, and will pursue this with OFCOM.
The crux of my complaint is that Virgin was not proactive, informing me of the capping. If they had I certainly would have corrected the problem immediately.
Instead, due to inaction on their part, myself and all the customers on our part of their network, were impacted for a excessive - and avoidable - period of time.
Further, I incurred both direct and indirect expense.
Direct - their pay as you go support line, and the cost of an 18 month subscription to a 3G USB modem service (Voadaphone) so I could work at home during their periods of capping.
Indirect - my time diagnosing the problem.
Finally, I never agreed to seven day capping period. Virgin and Virgin alone decided to cap me for seven days in violation of the AUP.
They did this solely because they've oversold the capacity. No other reason.
So I'm pushing this complaint up to the regulators, OFCOM.
And advise everyone impacted to do the same.
Don't write that PO Box forever; be focused and escalate to Virgin's bosses - OFCOM
We're on Virgin ADSL. About one month ago, someone hacked our WEP and started leaching. It was all my fault - I'd replaced a router, didn't lock down by MAC address, and they locked on.
We noticed slowdowns / issues but didn't call Virgin until my wife determined these always happened after 4PM. This was after some three weeks of slowdowns.
Called Virgin's "pay as you go support", where a technician cheerfully told us we'd been capped due to a violation of AUP.
Ok. Someone had leached our connection. Our fault. But it took TWO weeks to get uncapped.
All this after several weeks of leaching - which impacted ALL customers on our local net mind you - no email, no call, nothing. Until we incurred expense calling their "pay as you go support".
Virgin's shaping is poorly executed, and heavy handed.
"So nice of you to spend your time making it an even crappier place then. Imperialist fucks like you have no shame."
Ah Anonymous Cowards, those noisy and messy few who are proud to show the world they have absolutely no courage of their beliefs, not willing to go on record with their statements. Wonderful integrity.
When I went to Nigeria nobody else would go. That was how I showed the courage of my beliefs.
And to elaborate - I was down there helping banks upgrade their processes and systems, helping them to more fully participate in the global economy. Adding value, in other words. Certainly not looting as you've (so poorly) implied in your obviously well structured and thought out counter argument.
Here's how it works: if African banking institutions don't have adequate safeguards in place - processes, systems & training - then many Western banks won't do business with them. At least not the top tier institutions. Sure, lower grade institutions will do business with them, but extract higher costs because of increased risk driven by a less than western banking infrastructure. Higher cost isn't what a developing nation needs.
Strange how after almost every training seminar I gave folks were inviting me out for meals, to their homes, sending me cards for holidays, and even now I keep in contact with some folks in Lagos.
Maybe it was my American country boy charm, but they certainly didn't consider me an "imperialist fuck". I was often thanks for helping them improve their country. They knew I didn't have to be there, that there were better places for me to do business.
Yes, I like to think the place was a little better after I visited. In my own way I contributed a little. In 50 odd years once Sub Sahara Africa gets its act together I can look back and think "I helped".
I'm in banking, used to work for the Professional Services division of one of the ratings agencies, and at that firm I was the only person willing to travel to Nigeria.
Even considering the people living there are doing the best they can with what they got - I have a lot of respect for the dignity of the ordinary Nigerians just getting on with life - it's a pretty crappy place.
My last two visits there THE POLICE tried to rob me, each time. And ordinary crime is far more pervasive and violent. Recently I read about an armed gang that raided a hotel lobby, fully knowing there would be business visitors checking in & out, with luggage, expensive laptops, mobile phones, cash and passports.
South and East of Lagos in the Niger Delta region, Europeans and Americans must travel with very heavy security, as abductions for ransom are appallingly common, to the point where we were issued cards with instructions for how our abductors could arrange payment. They aren't going to harm you, for many of the gangs operating there it's just a business! Killing is bad business. Returning live hostages yields cash.
Finally, there is a large North / South - Christian / Muslim divide, lots of tension that often erupts into violence.
If Bill Gates was really denied a visa to visit Nigeria, this was more than likely based on fears for his safety and how embarrassing it would be for Nigeria should one of the world's richest men be held for a Software Magnates ransom.
PS - While Africa's most populous country is hardly peaceful and not at all safe, I found it a strangely beautiful and compelling place.
I fear this is for the hard core only.
I was hoping to get downloadable versions of all his books that I read as a kid, especially some of the more obscure titles, and as I read them.
Don't get me wrong - this is very cool, but we're not talking the finished product here, but all drafts leading up to the galley that was submitted to the publisher.
So this would be very good to see how the plot, characters & books were developed. But you're not gonna curl up with one of these. I suspect they'll be dense reads.
And expensive! The complete, seven parts of Starship Troopers will set you back $21!!
I'm American but have lived in London for ten years. Yes, (some) things are more expensive here. I was curious and looked into it. Excepted from the above link:
When you buy goods from a trader, such as a shop, market stall, garage, etc, you enter into a contract, which is controlled by many laws including, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended by the Sale & Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002). The law gives you certain implied, or automatic, statutory rights, under this contract.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) says that goods should be :
Store policies don't matter; this is the law and retailers must incorporate this cost into selling prices.
I mean, don't they have better things to do with these resources? Seems like the choice of targets tells us a lot about the opportunities - or perhaps lack of opportunities - that this resource (i.e., the Storm botnet) can be put to.
I mean, why not use it to make money? Attacking these sites ain't gonna directly generate any revenue. And one must consider such a resource as having a time value; what is the half life of a bot net anyhow? Is this one, given it's size, likely to be significantly different?
Sure, these scams are easier to pull off it people are uninformed. But how many of the people who are likely to get involved in such scams, upon receipt of these emails, will google first?
bandwidth, first make sure they want to share.
""A large percentage [of the vendors] are of a Hispanic nature," Langley said. "Today he's Jose Rodriguez, tomorrow he's Raul something or other, and tomorrow after that he's something else. These people change their identity all the time."
So let me see if I understand this: a Hispanic nature implies one is shift or devious? Wow. You know, if a real police officer said something like this his or her career would be over.
Unbelievable.
They wouldn't do this in the cash markets and they certainly wouldn't go long Apples shares as you're describing.
No, if this was manipulation (and I agree with you on the point that it probably was), then someone purchased put options, which increase in value as the underlying security, Apple shares in this case, decline.
They'd select the precise contracts to purchase based upon expiration dates and how far out of the money the put options were. Options give the holder immense leverage; I've controlled $3.4 million in shares using only about $20K in capital.
Short selling Apples shares wouldn't be viable as you're back in the cash market again - no leverage.
would offer the ultimate in security for the theft adverse iPod owner.
So why mess about with half measures like fingerprint activation? After all, if you stick it someplace where the sun don't shine, ain't nobody gonna know you're iPodding. Ignoring the obvious question of who the hell would try to steal an anally inserted iPod, who would purchase an (obviously) stolen / used anally insertable iPod?
Why the market for stolen iPods would close up tight.
"What about US proxies or remotely connecting to another machine in the US..."
Here's what troubling. I work in banking, and we do lock down specific systems to specific IPs.
Wanna access the banks internal news page while traveling? No problem, authenticate and away you go. This isn't very critical information, so no IP lockdown is needed. Who cares if something like this leaks?
Wanna access the Funds Transfer function from home? Fine, assuming you've got permissions and the IP has been screened & approved by InfoSec.
Wanna access the Funds Transfer function from a hotel you're at or a public WiFi hotspot? No way. We've got to be cautious as money is involved.
Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best.
"What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended."
This all could have been avoided if they'd locked access down to specific IPs ONLY. As in domestic US only.
From TFA "...plus unlimited mobile broadband access.".
Isn't this just marketing? The last I'd read, mobile data access in the US could hardly be called "broadband".
First of all, the fraudsters aren't stupid enough to leave (much) of a paper trail; its common for them to use brokerage accounts compromised by phising. They execute their pump'n'dump via a stolen account, and by the time the dust settles the funds have been transferred.
Secondly, many of these folks operate from abroad and the amounts involved - in any single fraud - just aren't large enough to warrant the intervention of The Feds. Sad but true.
Because the market for these shares is so thin - most of the pink sheets companies will have market caps of less than one million dollars - the criminals can't fraudulently run huge amounts of money. So they perform a large number of smaller transactions.
Short of some organised crime indictment, The Feds won't get involved as the individual amounts are so damn small.
Where there are loads of free proxies already available.
Many will even pass through https traffic. Personally I use MegaProxy so the banks NetCop can't snoop, but even the free sites are feature rich these days.
I'd say just stay away unless your friend can offer up a better explanation.
This is an indication of how messed up the place is; you're caught up in internal politics / disputes before day one.
Imagine how it will be on day two, month six, year one. It can only get worse.
Decline. And do them a favour - do it in writing, and tell them why.
Heavy. Metal. Bolts.
It doesn't happen in London; why would it happen in New York?
Criminals are the same everywhere. The New York criminal element isn't endowed with some "world class competitive advantage, shees!
No, sorry, I don't see large scale theft of cameras happening in New York as it doesn't already happen in London. Sure, an odd camera here and there, the low-lying fruit (i.e., cameras on 50' poles wont' be stolen at all). Maybe they'll even get away with it who knows?
But keep in mind these cameras are in public places; can't hardly stroll up in your ski mask without totally panicking the public can you?
Point taken about The Feds and efficiency, but also you've got to consider that there aren't any listed options for the Pink Sheet securities these pump'n'dump operators tout.
Seems like a losing game all around.
Correct in theory, but in practice you'd have to find someone willing to lend you the shares to short - after all, the definition of short selling is selling shares you don't own.
Most of these securities, traded on the Pink Sheets, are thinly traded at best. The secondary market is by no means liquid, at least what liquid means when we consider an NYSE or AMEX listed security.
So short selling, while the correct approach, wouldn't be viable in this market.