However if you have to buy the songs, you'll only buy those which you intend to listen to repeatedly.
Whether you buy a song you won't necessarily listen to repeatedly -- does depend on how well your curiosity about the song is satisfied by the 30 second preview, or what other means you might have available to "try out" a song you don't know about, to decide if you might like to listen to it repeatedly.:)
For example, most humans alive today bear some resistance to the plague and influenza H1N1 because they killed such a large portion of our population.
They would have the advantage that -- plague and H1N1 are not prevalent. Things humans are highly resistant/immune to are not likely to be floating around for the neanderthal to catch. Flu bugs are things a neanderthal could be vaccinated against as well.
Bringing back a Neanderthal would subject them to diseases 30,000 years more advance in the evolutionary arms race.
It's also entirely possible, that it doesn't matter much, seeing as humans
have been around for a million years or more.
30,000 years is not that long; it's only a few hundred generations.
Viruses evolve very rapidly, and humanoids' resistance to infection evolves very slowly.
The Neanderthals differences are potentially more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
A human child gets sick very frequently, and builds up resistance as a child, and some resistances
and allergies may be transferred from biological parent to child in the womb, I expect a Neanderthal baby would not be extremely different.
Secondly, a lot of viruses embed themselves in our genome. It's almost guaranteed that if a Neanderthal caught the virus, so could modern humans.
If the virus is in the Neanderthal's genome, chances are fairly good the Neanderthal did not die from it.
When an endogenous retrovirus gets incorporated to DNA, it very quickly loses infectiousness and becomes deactivated due to mutations, deletions, recombinant deletions that occur.
Bad how? That this unnatural "experiment" could find its way out of labs, end up fucking (or fucked by) humans, and then unknown genes be introduced into the human gene pool?
It would be an increase in genetic diversity, which could be a plus.
If the genes reintroduced are useful, then they might spread far down the generations.
If they are extremely bad, then they statistically won't get very far.
It is fitting to see this on the weekend before Martin Luther King Day. No, they won't just "get them"... everything worthwhile is fought for. A Neanderthal born today will not see "human(ish) rights" applied in his lifetime.
This would depend entirely on what the Neanderthal's mental capabilities are.
In the US, though, rights are afforded to persons regardless of race; if they are born by a human parent, they have self-awareness and intelligence, desire for freedom, and they can be recognized as a person, then they will have certain rights.
Which is worth approximately ( $0.0017 / 3 / 0.0000102669)*(1-1/(1+0.0000102669)^4870) = $2.69
Or rather, 5% at 365 days a year = of the 14610 days, that's actually 0.0001 per interval,
and there are 14610 intervals, (so the above is actually an underestimate, of the worth to the label, of
you subscribing) -- but the story is still the same, it's still more profitable to the label if you subscribe for 2 years, and then it's potentially several times as profitable, if you keep subscribing.
( 0.0017 / 3 / 0.0001)*(1-1/(1+0.0001)^14610)
On the other hand, the iTunes thing was a one-time purchase.
And the iTunes thing gave you a digital file, so you'd never need to buy it again (Owch).
The whole "Sell a CD", put the songs on multiple CDs, "Then make them buy a DRM encoded version from iTunes later" to have to rebuy the song multiple times, of course, was still better for the labels.
For every track played on spotify, the "label" gets $.0017. Buying through iTunes is vastly more beneficial to content producers.
OK... but what happens when the track is in your playlist, and you listen to it every day on a subscription service, for 2 years (assume about once a day); in other words 365 x 2 = 730 times spread out over 2 years?
OK, discounted ~5%/Year = 0.0137%/Day , the present value of that stream of revenue for the label would be:
( $0.0017 / 0.000137)*(1-1/(1+0.000137)^730) = $1.18
And despite them having gotten $1.24 from you worth $1.18 today..... you still don't own the sound track. You have to continue the subscription, if you want to keep hearing it:)
So... the question becomes... what happens, if you keep listening to the track once a day one third of the days of the rest of your life? Assuming you are age 30, and live until age 70, that's 4870 listens, or
$0.017 * 4870 = $82.79
Which is worth approximately
( $0.0017 / 3 / 0.0000102669)*(1-1/(1+0.0000102669)^4870) = $2.69
In today's dollars, and $2.69 is a heck of a lot more money for the label than $0.70,
hell, it's over 3 times as much.
For you to subscribe to the service, and listen to your music through that, as long as they get their little.17 cents every time:)
Maybe not, but who says that has to be the case? We know of actual cases where corporations -- with the full knowledge of their leaders -- sold arms to countries that were on the government's prohibited list; that drove other corporations out of business via nefarious (rather then market) means; and so on. And most people would call those things evil.
How do you determine when that actually makes the corporation evil versus, it just being fallible leaders entrusted with duties improperly directing people in the corporation to do things that are in effect evil?
It seems like you are absolving people working for the corporation of doing evil, and trying to blame the organizational structure itself.
However, nothing about the way a corporation is organized, dictates anything, that causes people in it to inherently do evil things.
The board and leaders are entrusted with care for the assets, but them directing people in the organization to do evil things doesn't make the organization itself evil; it's still just the people.
I think most people would agree that charging market price for a commodity is generally good, while selling children as sex slaves is evil.
OK... let's say some employee in a very large corporation's sales department starts selling some children as sex slaves, takes the check, and deposits it in the company's accounts. Upper management has no understanding of what the activity is, that one of their sales teams started with, and will never admit to corporate anyways, the exact nature of the sale they have conducted.
Does this make the corporation evil?
Is an entire corporation automatically evil, if some person or group that works for it, does something evil, to improve their status in the organization?
Or perhaps corporations that do a poor job at monitoring every move by any member of their staff, (eg. by failing to videotape every moment of employees' interactions with customers), are evil.
This is a complicated thing, because corporations are not a single entity with a single brain; they usually have multiple autonomous parts, that can do evil things, without the whole even being aware.....
Corporations do not have a legal obligation to maximize profits. Look it up.
Correct. They have however, a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, to improve the value of the corporation, and to accomplish the mission of the company as laid out in the charter.
Maximizing profits, while also maximizing risk is not a requirement.
Maximizing reliable profits, while controlling risk, is one thing many corporations will do.
Not worth an extra 10% in profits, if getting that extra 10%, requires creating a significant risk of massive losses.
What is required of management is far more complicated than "maximizing one particular number"
This is untrue, or every time a corporation made a charitable donations its CEO would get sued and/or jailed.
No... because positive PR, so called branding capital , and tax write offs are part of that value equation.
The donations they make aren't significant in size enough to be provably fiscally irresponsible,
and they improve the public image of the company, which goes on the balance sheet as an asset,
and increase in shareholder value.
There are a couple fundamental issues with capitalism that are failing to be addressed here: monopolies, and natural monopolies.
There is not per se a natural monopoly.
There is a regulatory monopoly, because the government provides incumbents special rights an funding.
You're not allowed to just start doing business and competing with the large cable companies.
Because they have special rights to do things like, install copper and fiber on public rights of way.
The monopoly is... noone would be able to provide the service at all, except, the government
chose to facilitate certain players, without also putting conditions requiring those players
to have the interest of the customers exclusively at heart....
By the way, do you have any evidence that MIT told him to stop? I don't think blacklisting his MAC address counts as correspondence.
That concept doesn't make any sense. It's not possible to blacklist a MAC address from accessing a web site, period.
(Except in the very unlikely case that you can guarantee the person you want to blacklist is always on the exact same local area network as the web server)
By the way, do you have any evidence that MIT told him to stop?
I don't care about the MIT guy. I'm speaking to the general case.
If you are ordered to cease visiting the site, they can confirm you receive the message, and a technical measure is used to ensure you can't visit the site, then bypassing the measure and connecting back, and continuing to harass members of the form or conduct other abuses, should be criminal trespass / fraud, and abuse, with a potential to incur jail time.
Eventually somebody will do the math -- 35 years for TOS violations, 15 for rape
I'm not in favor of that.
I would say 25 years minimum for rape.
Excepting circumstances that arise, which may be called rape, by technicality.
Eg. Under certain circumstances, a consensual sexual act might be declared rape, even though there was no force used, weapon, or threat of injury made. So called "date rape", where both partners were drunk, and therefore incapable of providing consent due to legal rules, or where willful consent of a partner was legally void due to statute, because one or both partners were a year too young in the eyes of the law; one or both might be guilty of rape by statute.
(In those cases, 25 years, or even 15 could be unjust).
1 year for minor fraud, involving hundreds of dollars of losses.
10 years for moderate fraud, ToS violations or theft, involving thousands of dollars.
15 years for major fraud, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars.
20 years for massive fraud, involving millions dollars in loss or theft.
30 years for 10s of millions.
For repeat offenders, double the time, and require that they make full reparations with their own blood and sweat, before they can be fully released.
People want security, but they don't want security at the expense of obscene performance losses.
This is a problem... antivirus makers aren't actually selling security.
It's impossible to secure a computer against an insecure human with admin rights; who can be exploited by new threats not detected by the scanning,
or new threats having so many diverse versions that antivirus can't effectively detect them..
Antivirus vendors are selling a FEELING or EMOTION of security.
Their product is feeling that your computer is secure; to achieve that, they need to add a lot of B***S****, because the computer is not actually secure after installing their product (or just about anyone's product, that still lets the user use the computer, without taking away their admin access or ability to install/run unknown programs/web plugins/java applets after its done).
The ToS can only be a contract, if the person who signed up to access the site, furnished accurate information, and actually intended to abide by the terms.
If you sign a document, in real life, supplying a false name, or false address, or someone else's identity, and/or have no real intention whatsoever to make good on the terms, while you take off with whatever thing of value you received from the other party, then in this case, it's not merely a breach of contract, but a crime in real life, you go to jail, and you should go to jail if you do that online, as well.
A breach of contract is a failure to satisfy all your obligations, but before you can be merely in breach, you have to have actually have agreed to the contract in good faith, and intended at one time, to adhere to the contract.
Deceiving the other party into thinking you two have an agreement, so you can rob them virtually or physically: is fraud.
For a document to actually be a contract, it has to meet certain legal tests.
For a document to be a contract, there has to be a meeting of minds, and there has to be consideration such as payment, or items of monetary value, received by both parties.
If they furnished false information, eg a fake name, when a real name was required, then they have committed a criminal act that goes far beyond simple breach of contract.
In most cases a ToS will not be a contract, because nothing prevents you from accessing the site without verifiably agreeing to it. The ToS is something else.
A ToS is more like a "No trespassing" sign;
or more like a "No trespassing; No admittance, except if you follow these rules...."
In the event, you don't follow the rules, then you committed the crime of trespass.
I'd probably draw a distinction between when money changes hands relating to TOS-violations, and otherwise. There need to be tools to fight botters, for example.
If the ToS and the site requires you represent something, that the organization running the site is entitled to rely upon the accuracy of due to the ToS requirement, and you intentionally make a false representation, in violation of the ToS, in order to profit from the situation, and you do derive that benefit.
They ought to still be able to nail the violator with wire fraud charges
If the violation of ToS is due to an illegal action like posting things that are illegal both for the location of the site and the poster it should still land into the legal system, but the large volume of ToS violations should at most render the offender a permanent banning from that site or in milder cases a temporary ban.
Evading the ban, or continuing to access the site after ordered not to, by the owner, should land you in jail:)
When the package exploits a server, it alters pages/links to redirect each unique visitor to a dynamically generated temp folder on itself which contains the phishing code, and afterwards is deleted.
Fabulous... I just need to make my mail server, PING every URL in an e-mail before delivering the message, and if it's a phishing attempt, the user will get a 404 error instead of the phisher's intended page.
Another possibility is to rewrite every URL in every e-mail (except ones in a whitelist), so clicking the link will connect to a local "proxy" / "redirector"; which will request the page first, and check a blacklist, before redirecting the user to the page.
Thanks to the anti-investigative measures implemented by the phisher, the phishing attempt will now be foiled.
Slashdot Mirror
Every site should allow any password if they just hash it like they should.
I consider restricting the character set a lesser crime than sites like Amazon, Blizzard that make passwords case-insensitive
However if you have to buy the songs, you'll only buy those which you intend to listen to repeatedly.
Whether you buy a song you won't necessarily listen to repeatedly -- does depend on how well your curiosity about the song is satisfied by the 30 second preview, or what other means you might have available to "try out" a song you don't know about, to decide if you might like to listen to it repeatedly. :)
For example, most humans alive today bear some resistance to the plague and influenza H1N1 because they killed such a large portion of our population.
They would have the advantage that -- plague and H1N1 are not prevalent. Things humans are highly resistant/immune to are not likely to be floating around for the neanderthal to catch. Flu bugs are things a neanderthal could be vaccinated against as well.
Bringing back a Neanderthal would subject them to diseases 30,000 years more advance in the evolutionary arms race.
It's also entirely possible, that it doesn't matter much, seeing as humans have been around for a million years or more. 30,000 years is not that long; it's only a few hundred generations. Viruses evolve very rapidly, and humanoids' resistance to infection evolves very slowly.
The Neanderthals differences are potentially more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
A human child gets sick very frequently, and builds up resistance as a child, and some resistances and allergies may be transferred from biological parent to child in the womb, I expect a Neanderthal baby would not be extremely different.
Secondly, a lot of viruses embed themselves in our genome. It's almost guaranteed that if a Neanderthal caught the virus, so could modern humans.
If the virus is in the Neanderthal's genome, chances are fairly good the Neanderthal did not die from it.
When an endogenous retrovirus gets incorporated to DNA, it very quickly loses infectiousness and becomes deactivated due to mutations, deletions, recombinant deletions that occur.
Bad how? That this unnatural "experiment" could find its way out of labs, end up fucking (or fucked by) humans, and then unknown genes be introduced into the human gene pool?
It would be an increase in genetic diversity, which could be a plus.
If the genes reintroduced are useful, then they might spread far down the generations. If they are extremely bad, then they statistically won't get very far.
Does the article say if he also plans to clone a bride for him?
He may need to clone a few of each gender, so that they have spouse candidates to pick from.
Otherwise, it would seem like an unfairly pre-arranged marriage.
It is fitting to see this on the weekend before Martin Luther King Day. No, they won't just "get them"... everything worthwhile is fought for. A Neanderthal born today will not see "human(ish) rights" applied in his lifetime.
This would depend entirely on what the Neanderthal's mental capabilities are.
In the US, though, rights are afforded to persons regardless of race; if they are born by a human parent, they have self-awareness and intelligence, desire for freedom, and they can be recognized as a person, then they will have certain rights.
They might be too passive or too aggressive, or simply have incompatible responses to situations to live with modern humans.
Many responses are learned, including aggression, so it's unlikely.
In that case, special arrangements might need to be made to see to the neanderthal's well-being and happiness.
This should be a documented obligation of whoever sets out on this 'experiment'.
Ask yourself just some simple preliminary questions such as: If the resulting semi-human is self aware, what rights will it/he/she have?
Should have the same rights as any person born by a human mother.
A ramification of this should be... whoever volunteers, better be prepared to parent this child, and deal with certain difficulties which might occur.
Or else, in case of a surrogacy, whatever person the mother has this child for, better be prepared to parent the child as any other human child.
And no, a lab does not have a right to own, imprison, or enslave a sentient being.
Which is worth approximately ( $0.0017 / 3 / 0.0000102669)*(1-1/(1+0.0000102669)^4870) = $2.69
Or rather, 5% at 365 days a year = of the 14610 days, that's actually 0.0001 per interval, and there are 14610 intervals, (so the above is actually an underestimate, of the worth to the label, of you subscribing) -- but the story is still the same, it's still more profitable to the label if you subscribe for 2 years, and then it's potentially several times as profitable, if you keep subscribing.
( 0.0017 / 3 / 0.0001)*(1-1/(1+0.0001)^14610)
On the other hand, the iTunes thing was a one-time purchase.
And the iTunes thing gave you a digital file, so you'd never need to buy it again (Owch). The whole "Sell a CD", put the songs on multiple CDs, "Then make them buy a DRM encoded version from iTunes later" to have to rebuy the song multiple times, of course, was still better for the labels.
But subscription isn't that bad.
For every track played on spotify, the "label" gets $.0017. Buying through iTunes is vastly more beneficial to content producers.
OK... but what happens when the track is in your playlist, and you listen to it every day on a subscription service, for 2 years (assume about once a day); in other words 365 x 2 = 730 times spread out over 2 years?
OK, discounted ~5%/Year = 0.0137%/Day , the present value of that stream of revenue for the label would be:
( $0.0017 / 0.000137)*(1-1/(1+0.000137)^730) = $1.18
And despite them having gotten $1.24 from you worth $1.18 today..... you still don't own the sound track. You have to continue the subscription, if you want to keep hearing it :)
So... the question becomes... what happens, if you keep listening to the track once a day one third of the days of the rest of your life? Assuming you are age 30, and live until age 70, that's 4870 listens, or $0.017 * 4870 = $82.79
Which is worth approximately ( $0.0017 / 3 / 0.0000102669)*(1-1/(1+0.0000102669)^4870) = $2.69
In today's dollars, and $2.69 is a heck of a lot more money for the label than $0.70, hell, it's over 3 times as much.
For you to subscribe to the service, and listen to your music through that, as long as they get their little .17 cents every time :)
Maybe not, but who says that has to be the case? We know of actual cases where corporations -- with the full knowledge of their leaders -- sold arms to countries that were on the government's prohibited list; that drove other corporations out of business via nefarious (rather then market) means; and so on. And most people would call those things evil.
How do you determine when that actually makes the corporation evil versus, it just being fallible leaders entrusted with duties improperly directing people in the corporation to do things that are in effect evil?
It seems like you are absolving people working for the corporation of doing evil, and trying to blame the organizational structure itself.
However, nothing about the way a corporation is organized, dictates anything, that causes people in it to inherently do evil things.
The board and leaders are entrusted with care for the assets, but them directing people in the organization to do evil things doesn't make the organization itself evil; it's still just the people.
I think most people would agree that charging market price for a commodity is generally good, while selling children as sex slaves is evil.
OK... let's say some employee in a very large corporation's sales department starts selling some children as sex slaves, takes the check, and deposits it in the company's accounts. Upper management has no understanding of what the activity is, that one of their sales teams started with, and will never admit to corporate anyways, the exact nature of the sale they have conducted.
Does this make the corporation evil?
Is an entire corporation automatically evil, if some person or group that works for it, does something evil, to improve their status in the organization?
Or perhaps corporations that do a poor job at monitoring every move by any member of their staff, (eg. by failing to videotape every moment of employees' interactions with customers), are evil.
This is a complicated thing, because corporations are not a single entity with a single brain; they usually have multiple autonomous parts, that can do evil things, without the whole even being aware.....
Corporations do not have a legal obligation to maximize profits. Look it up.
Correct. They have however, a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, to improve the value of the corporation, and to accomplish the mission of the company as laid out in the charter.
Maximizing profits, while also maximizing risk is not a requirement.
Maximizing reliable profits, while controlling risk, is one thing many corporations will do.
Not worth an extra 10% in profits, if getting that extra 10%, requires creating a significant risk of massive losses.
What is required of management is far more complicated than "maximizing one particular number"
This is untrue, or every time a corporation made a charitable donations its CEO would get sued and/or jailed.
No... because positive PR, so called branding capital , and tax write offs are part of that value equation.
The donations they make aren't significant in size enough to be provably fiscally irresponsible, and they improve the public image of the company, which goes on the balance sheet as an asset, and increase in shareholder value.
There are a couple fundamental issues with capitalism that are failing to be addressed here: monopolies, and natural monopolies.
There is not per se a natural monopoly. There is a regulatory monopoly, because the government provides incumbents special rights an funding.
You're not allowed to just start doing business and competing with the large cable companies.
Because they have special rights to do things like, install copper and fiber on public rights of way.
The monopoly is... noone would be able to provide the service at all, except, the government chose to facilitate certain players, without also putting conditions requiring those players to have the interest of the customers exclusively at heart....
I don't think it means even that. In fact, I don't think "fair" was ever meant to mean "for you".
"Fair" means, you get no more value from it, than 50% of what you pay.
Why would they add that restrictions? Adding conditions could have reduced the profits for Lala's shareholders, by reducing the selling price.
The virus/malware authors though, might not appreciate you pirating their software, and may sue as a result....
By the way, do you have any evidence that MIT told him to stop? I don't think blacklisting his MAC address counts as correspondence.
That concept doesn't make any sense. It's not possible to blacklist a MAC address from accessing a web site, period. (Except in the very unlikely case that you can guarantee the person you want to blacklist is always on the exact same local area network as the web server)
By the way, do you have any evidence that MIT told him to stop?
I don't care about the MIT guy. I'm speaking to the general case.
If you are ordered to cease visiting the site, they can confirm you receive the message, and a technical measure is used to ensure you can't visit the site, then bypassing the measure and connecting back, and continuing to harass members of the form or conduct other abuses, should be criminal trespass / fraud, and abuse, with a potential to incur jail time.
Eventually somebody will do the math -- 35 years for TOS violations, 15 for rape
I'm not in favor of that.
I would say 25 years minimum for rape. Excepting circumstances that arise, which may be called rape, by technicality. Eg. Under certain circumstances, a consensual sexual act might be declared rape, even though there was no force used, weapon, or threat of injury made. So called "date rape", where both partners were drunk, and therefore incapable of providing consent due to legal rules, or where willful consent of a partner was legally void due to statute, because one or both partners were a year too young in the eyes of the law; one or both might be guilty of rape by statute.
(In those cases, 25 years, or even 15 could be unjust).
1 year for minor fraud, involving hundreds of dollars of losses.
10 years for moderate fraud, ToS violations or theft, involving thousands of dollars.
15 years for major fraud, involving hundreds of thousands of dollars.
20 years for massive fraud, involving millions dollars in loss or theft.
30 years for 10s of millions.
For repeat offenders, double the time, and require that they make full reparations with their own blood and sweat, before they can be fully released.
People want security, but they don't want security at the expense of obscene performance losses.
This is a problem... antivirus makers aren't actually selling security.
It's impossible to secure a computer against an insecure human with admin rights; who can be exploited by new threats not detected by the scanning, or new threats having so many diverse versions that antivirus can't effectively detect them..
Antivirus vendors are selling a FEELING or EMOTION of security. Their product is feeling that your computer is secure; to achieve that, they need to add a lot of B***S****, because the computer is not actually secure after installing their product (or just about anyone's product, that still lets the user use the computer, without taking away their admin access or ability to install/run unknown programs/web plugins/java applets after its done).
The Terms of Service are a contract.
The ToS can only be a contract, if the person who signed up to access the site, furnished accurate information, and actually intended to abide by the terms. If you sign a document, in real life, supplying a false name, or false address, or someone else's identity, and/or have no real intention whatsoever to make good on the terms, while you take off with whatever thing of value you received from the other party, then in this case, it's not merely a breach of contract, but a crime in real life, you go to jail, and you should go to jail if you do that online, as well.
A breach of contract is a failure to satisfy all your obligations, but before you can be merely in breach, you have to have actually have agreed to the contract in good faith, and intended at one time, to adhere to the contract. Deceiving the other party into thinking you two have an agreement, so you can rob them virtually or physically: is fraud.
For a document to actually be a contract, it has to meet certain legal tests. For a document to be a contract, there has to be a meeting of minds, and there has to be consideration such as payment, or items of monetary value, received by both parties.
If they furnished false information, eg a fake name, when a real name was required, then they have committed a criminal act that goes far beyond simple breach of contract.
In most cases a ToS will not be a contract, because nothing prevents you from accessing the site without verifiably agreeing to it. The ToS is something else.
A ToS is more like a "No trespassing" sign; or more like a "No trespassing; No admittance, except if you follow these rules ...."
In the event, you don't follow the rules, then you committed the crime of trespass.
I'd probably draw a distinction between when money changes hands relating to TOS-violations, and otherwise. There need to be tools to fight botters, for example.
If the ToS and the site requires you represent something, that the organization running the site is entitled to rely upon the accuracy of due to the ToS requirement, and you intentionally make a false representation, in violation of the ToS, in order to profit from the situation, and you do derive that benefit.
They ought to still be able to nail the violator with wire fraud charges
If the violation of ToS is due to an illegal action like posting things that are illegal both for the location of the site and the poster it should still land into the legal system, but the large volume of ToS violations should at most render the offender a permanent banning from that site or in milder cases a temporary ban.
Evading the ban, or continuing to access the site after ordered not to, by the owner, should land you in jail :)
When the package exploits a server, it alters pages/links to redirect each unique visitor to a dynamically generated temp folder on itself which contains the phishing code, and afterwards is deleted.
Fabulous... I just need to make my mail server, PING every URL in an e-mail before delivering the message, and if it's a phishing attempt, the user will get a 404 error instead of the phisher's intended page.
Another possibility is to rewrite every URL in every e-mail (except ones in a whitelist), so clicking the link will connect to a local "proxy" / "redirector"; which will request the page first, and check a blacklist, before redirecting the user to the page. Thanks to the anti-investigative measures implemented by the phisher, the phishing attempt will now be foiled.