Cut scene to nearby county. Cocke County Tennessee, a dry (no liquor allowed county) where the alcohol is being served, by the sheriif's department at the local whore house that features 15 year old hookers. The entire county was arrested for cock fighting - technically illegal, but supported by the govenor. He is upset that the FBI waists it's time on such a harmless activity, entire county was released, whorehouse(s) resume.
I suppose you have some sort of references to back up these rambling accusations? I tend to imagine that if an entire county was arrested, or if a sheriff's department was running a brothel full of underage whores, we'd have heard about it here in the state's largest city.
You have an interesting definition of "nothing happened." To me, it sounded more like:
Police raid ISP Police confiscate servers Police visit Suprnova operator at home Police seize two computers and various media from Suprnova operator Suprnova spends a few months in limbo Suprnova stresses out over mail from prosecutor Case dropped Suprnova still gone
I'd be interested in a translation of the letter that he posted on the site. Specifically, I'm interested in knowing why exactly the prosecutors decided not to pursue the case.
I agree entirely, and if I had any pull at Wikipedia, I'd be taking it even further. Specifically,
a) Require voice-verified[1] accounts before allowing live edit privileges.
b) Require email-verified accounts before allowing edit privileges at all. Unregistered users can view, they can't edit. Disallow Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, GMail, and other known free email providers from email verification. You want to edit at Wikipedia? You need a real email address.
c) Edits submitted by email-verified but non-voice-verified accounts are not committed until reviewed by a voice-verified user.
[1]Google is now providing a telephone and/or VOIP service for calls to their AdWords advertisers. Google also claims to be a major supporter of Wikipedia. So, why doesn't Google provide its telephony services to Wikipedia, free of charge, as a mechanism to voice-verify Wikipedia accounts?
A voice-verified Wikipedia account would mean that the account is tied to something significantly more identifiable than an email address; this could be a safeguard against pranksters and bogus editors. Users who are comfortable with this would be rewarded with live edit privileges. Users who aren't comfortable with providing their phone number (like me) will just have to wait for our edits to be moderated.
I'm expecting some royalty checks if it happens, of course. Hey, it's cheaper than hiring me full-time.
I wonder if it's any coincidence that if you search for a phrase in Google's "you had invalid clicks so we aren't going to pay you" letter (that phrase being "that invalid clicks have been generated on") in Google, you get 545 results, but if you perform the same search at MSN, you get 832 results.
Things that make you go "hmm." MSN is rarely if ever better than Google at search results.
Because of this, google can charge whatever they like and most people will pay it.
They'll also get ripped off.
Here's a common story:
"I put Google AdSense on my website. I earned about $140.00, and Google was just getting ready to send me a check. Then, out of nowhere, Google sent me an email telling me I'd generated 'invalid clicks' and that my AdSense account was terminated, and all of my profits would be returned to the advertisers."
Hundreds, if not thousands, of AdSense displayers just like me have faced this fate. But here's the question to AdWords advertisers. Have you ever seen a "refund" on your AdWords account due to some AdSense advertiser generating "invalid clicks" for your ad? I never did. Google confiscates the money from the AdSense displayer, but does not return the money to the related AdWords advertisers! That is to say, Google keeps the money that the AdWords advertisers paid to display their ads; and also keeps the money that they were supposed to pay out to the AdSense webmasters for displaying those ads.
Google is making a killing on displayed advertisements for a lot of keywords and phrases, without paying out a penny to those who are displaying the ads on their pages. They're arbitrarily cancelling AdSense displayers' accounts for unspecified reasons, and if you try to determine why, you wind up in formletter hell. "Do No Evil," my arse.
I've been on both sides of the fence. I advertised through AdWords, I displayed AdSense ads on my site. And Google decided to kill my AdSense account while I was on vacation, for "invalid clicks," and despite emails requesting details, they wouldn't bother to explain what that meant.
I immediately pulled the AdSense ads from my sites and replaced them with Yahoo Publisher ads. Good news on that front, Yahoo is actually sending me checks. And I can guarantee you that I'll never again spend a penny on any Google service, be it AdWords or any other fee-based product they come up with.
I admit I haven't seen "Coach Carter", and I'm not using hard numbers here, but I estimate that uploading an entire motion picture at any worthwhile quality would take at least six hours, maybe twelve.
Therein lies the rub: did this guy really upload an entire motion picture? Remember that the media cartels have filed several lawsuits and/or DMCA notices simply based upon filenames; it's clear that some of these organizations don't actually download the files before siccing the lawyers. Recall, too, that the MPAA specifically has done this at least once, claiming that a 113KB archive of TCL software was pirated X-Files episodes.
Maybe the MPAA trolled eDonkey for people who appeared to be sharing certain files. If this were the case, it could easily have been a "drive by" situation where someone else's eDonkey client returned a query hit via this guy's WAP.
Instead this has to do with "parental concern" not much unlike the advisory warnings on CDs and Tapes (a movement led by a "liberal", I will remind you).
Considering that the the "conservative" idea is generally to ban them altogether, I'll stick with the advisory warnings, and ignore your attempt to make "liberal" seem like a naughty word.
EVERYONE seems to get it wrong: CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, CNET. Somehow, the writers chosen to pump out articles like this either don't really understand technology or just pick subjects of which they don't really know anything.
And unfortunately, it's not all that unusual. After reading the article, I'm not so sure that "phishing" played a part at all, and I'm disappointed that C|Net is playing the media-hype-buzzword game beyond what could reasonably be expected. I figure that [MS]NBC, CNN, and the other networks will get this sort of thing wrong, but C|Net is fairly reputable when it comes to tech reporting.
FTA,
Last spring, staff, faculty and students at the University of Kentucky opened e-mail messages purporting to be from the university's credit union and requesting confidential information to access their accounts (something no financial institution in the country ever seeks via e-mail).
That isn't "spear phishing," and sure as hell doesn't warrant the coining of a new term. It might be considered normal "phishing," if only the author had a clue. Just because a "phish" is targeted at a particular group doesn't make it any more special than the everyday eBay "phish" spammed at random to ten million email addresses. This whole "spear phishing" thing is a contrived buzzword like "spim" (or "Cyber Monday"). Spam over IM is still spam, it doesn't need a new term. Phishing for particular targets is still phishing - I even hate that term, really - and doesn't need a new cyberbuzzword.
Free clue-by-four: the term "phishing" gained popularity on AOL some 6 or 8 years ago, and described the practice of attempting to solicit passwords from unsuspecting users. No matter how simplistic or elaborate the scheme, and regardless of whether normal users or employees were targeted in a blanket or with a direct ploy, it was always "phishing" (or ><> 'ing). Back then, the media hadn't yet caught on to the idea. Now that they've caught up, they want to call anything and everything "phishing."
From TFA,
About two weeks ago, a more traditional phishing scam infected about 30,000 individual computers worldwide, according to CipherTrust, a computer security firm.
Are you kidding me? How does a "phishing scam" "infect" computers? "Phishing" is asking for information; it's impossible for a "phish" to infect anything.
I've really lost some respect for C|Net on this one.
Re:There are several competing systems like this
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 1
That mofo bugs the shit out of me. I have to drive through the hood quite a bit, and *I'm* offended by his ads, and I'm a cracker. The tv commercials really take the cake, though. I'm suprised no one has popped a cap in his sorry white butt yet.
Oddly enough, I hear that he (Mark Goodfellow) tends to show up at a lot of the same "public events" that Herenton does, and that the two of them get along rather well. What a car dealer is doing frequently appearing at mayoral photo opportunities is beyond me, unless of course he's just grubbing for a better rep among his target market.
No offense at all to grandparent poster if Mark "It's All Good"-fellow is his brother, it would actually be rather comical to find that MG's got a geek in the family.
Re:There are several competing systems like this
on
High-Tech RepoMan
·
· Score: 1
My brother runs a car lot in Memphis and has been using a device like this for years.
Is your brother that guy from "It's All Good Auto Sales?"
The idea is that, in the FCC's collective mind, people should be able to sign up for cable programming without receiving, say, Comedy Central which they might find "offensive." Granted, the tools certainly already exist for irresponsi^Wconcerned parents to block these channels out; if you watch TV any, you've also seen that broadcast and cable networks are showing commercials for ControlYourTV.org and promoting parental responsibility.
I believe the issue now is that people are upset that they're having to pay for/subsidize certain channels that they've got no interest in receiving or viewing. Like another poster said, a-la-carte pricing is the right idea, but it's being promoted for the wrong reason.
Here is a link to the Proof of Concept page, which will launch an instance of calc.exe if you're vulnerable. AVG Free caught the exploit in the cached page, but calc.exe ran anyway, even after I deleted the file.
I'm in the tiny minority of people who actually budget their personal finances like a corporation.
In other words, you pretend you're earning a lot more than you really are, you spend money as if this were true, then when the shit's about to hit the fan, you spend your remaining capital on buying politicians?
If you're doubting the freshness of the term, try searching in Google Groups instead. A usenet search can often give you a better picture of how a term or phrase evolved through culture.
"Cyber Monday" - 20 results, all but one were indeed posted within the past week. The other one is in Russian, and doesn't actually appear to contain the term.
So, if there was such a thing as "Cyber Monday" prior to this Thanksgiving, nobody seemed to know about it, and they sure as heck weren't discussing it.
Scroll down to the section labelled "Customize Stories on the Homepage," uncheck the checkbox next to the editors you don't want to hear from, and then submit the form using the "Save" button.
Install Sony DRM protected CD Re-Name your favorite CD ripping program to $SYS$filename.exe Now your CD ripper is hidden from Sony's DRM
Maybe you missed the story from a few days ago where it was indicated that Sony's spyware can see through veiled attempts to use files whose names begin with $sys$.
On the other hand, intentionally infecting oneself with this spyware in order to avoid other companies' DRM is simply genius, and is a sweet example of how multiple companies' competing DRM schemes will never be successful. Sony's DRM has made it possible to cheat in at least one MMORPM without recourse.
Just adding MALE names would give you atleast 20 more easy names. Why are storm names female? I suppose it comes from the old days when only men worked as sailors , and thus named everything female.
You might have heard of hurricanes Charley, Dennis, Frederick, or Hugo; the name pool isn't restricted to female names. Names for named tropical storms in the Atlantic are pulled from a list which rotates every six years, and the combined series of six lists contains an equal number of male and female names.
Google obviously thinks they are going to win this case or else wouldn't they want to extend googlemail to all sections of the globe?
They've already done so. Email sent to username@googlemail.com will be delivered to username@gmail.com, regardless of where the account owner lives. If you have an existing GMail account, try sending yourself an email at username@googlemail.com. You'll get the message.
Anyone who's still unconvinced that this is fully transparent,
Although I'm sure that Google could do this, its not clear that Google will want to do this. Where's the money?
Where's the money in developing and giving away a web browser? For Microsoft, the money was (and still is) in market share, not in sales revenue. Google might be motivated by an attempt to further ingrain their brand into the mind of everyone who uses a computer. They're already giving away plenty of services, several of them ad-free (Google News, Google Maps...).
To be honest, I hope that Google doesn't waste money on this. Prior comments sum up most of my opinions about the idea of a supposed "Google Office." My documents are my business, I'm not uploading them anywhere, I don't care who owns the server or how much they claim not to be evil. If I want portability, I'll put stuff on a USB pen drive. And I guess most of all, a word processor is a client app.
There's no need to involve the internet in creating documents, spreadsheets, etc. There sure as hell is no reason for a web browser to be any part of the process. You'll have to pry my [wordpad|pico] from my cold, dead hands.
Don't forget to add "Phulli Sik" stickers to the side of the case, and maybe a few logo's on the front.... AMD, Nvidia, etc. Attached to the drive bay door at a slight angle. (With an Intel sticker cut in half, upside down, on the spoiler.... You gotta have a spoiler).
Totally right on, but you forgot one of the most important case mods that all hardcore geeks know about. The CD drive must be stickered "Type CD-R" for maximum efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
Police raid ISP
Police confiscate servers
Police visit Suprnova operator at home
Police seize two computers and various media from Suprnova operator
Suprnova spends a few months in limbo
Suprnova stresses out over mail from prosecutor
Case dropped
Suprnova still gone
I'd be interested in a translation of the letter that he posted on the site. Specifically, I'm interested in knowing why exactly the prosecutors decided not to pursue the case.
a) Require voice-verified[1] accounts before allowing live edit privileges.
b) Require email-verified accounts before allowing edit privileges at all. Unregistered users can view, they can't edit. Disallow Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, GMail, and other known free email providers from email verification. You want to edit at Wikipedia? You need a real email address.
c) Edits submitted by email-verified but non-voice-verified accounts are not committed until reviewed by a voice-verified user.
[1]Google is now providing a telephone and/or VOIP service for calls to their AdWords advertisers. Google also claims to be a major supporter of Wikipedia. So, why doesn't Google provide its telephony services to Wikipedia, free of charge, as a mechanism to voice-verify Wikipedia accounts?
A voice-verified Wikipedia account would mean that the account is tied to something significantly more identifiable than an email address; this could be a safeguard against pranksters and bogus editors. Users who are comfortable with this would be rewarded with live edit privileges. Users who aren't comfortable with providing their phone number (like me) will just have to wait for our edits to be moderated.
I'm expecting some royalty checks if it happens, of course. Hey, it's cheaper than hiring me full-time.
I wonder if it's any coincidence that if you search for a phrase in Google's "you had invalid clicks so we aren't going to pay you" letter (that phrase being "that invalid clicks have been generated on") in Google, you get 545 results, but if you perform the same search at MSN, you get 832 results.
Things that make you go "hmm." MSN is rarely if ever better than Google at search results.
Here's a common story:
"I put Google AdSense on my website. I earned about $140.00, and Google was just getting ready to send me a check. Then, out of nowhere, Google sent me an email telling me I'd generated 'invalid clicks' and that my AdSense account was terminated, and all of my profits would be returned to the advertisers."
Hundreds, if not thousands, of AdSense displayers just like me have faced this fate. But here's the question to AdWords advertisers. Have you ever seen a "refund" on your AdWords account due to some AdSense advertiser generating "invalid clicks" for your ad? I never did. Google confiscates the money from the AdSense displayer, but does not return the money to the related AdWords advertisers! That is to say, Google keeps the money that the AdWords advertisers paid to display their ads; and also keeps the money that they were supposed to pay out to the AdSense webmasters for displaying those ads.
Google is making a killing on displayed advertisements for a lot of keywords and phrases, without paying out a penny to those who are displaying the ads on their pages. They're arbitrarily cancelling AdSense displayers' accounts for unspecified reasons, and if you try to determine why, you wind up in formletter hell. "Do No Evil," my arse.
I've been on both sides of the fence. I advertised through AdWords, I displayed AdSense ads on my site. And Google decided to kill my AdSense account while I was on vacation, for "invalid clicks," and despite emails requesting details, they wouldn't bother to explain what that meant.
I immediately pulled the AdSense ads from my sites and replaced them with Yahoo Publisher ads. Good news on that front, Yahoo is actually sending me checks. And I can guarantee you that I'll never again spend a penny on any Google service, be it AdWords or any other fee-based product they come up with.
Maybe the MPAA trolled eDonkey for people who appeared to be sharing certain files. If this were the case, it could easily have been a "drive by" situation where someone else's eDonkey client returned a query hit via this guy's WAP.
"News for financial partners of the editors, bank balances that matter."
FTA, That isn't "spear phishing," and sure as hell doesn't warrant the coining of a new term. It might be considered normal "phishing," if only the author had a clue. Just because a "phish" is targeted at a particular group doesn't make it any more special than the everyday eBay "phish" spammed at random to ten million email addresses. This whole "spear phishing" thing is a contrived buzzword like "spim" (or "Cyber Monday"). Spam over IM is still spam, it doesn't need a new term. Phishing for particular targets is still phishing - I even hate that term, really - and doesn't need a new cyberbuzzword.
Free clue-by-four: the term "phishing" gained popularity on AOL some 6 or 8 years ago, and described the practice of attempting to solicit passwords from unsuspecting users. No matter how simplistic or elaborate the scheme, and regardless of whether normal users or employees were targeted in a blanket or with a direct ploy, it was always "phishing" (or ><> 'ing). Back then, the media hadn't yet caught on to the idea. Now that they've caught up, they want to call anything and everything "phishing."
From TFA, Are you kidding me? How does a "phishing scam" "infect" computers? "Phishing" is asking for information; it's impossible for a "phish" to infect anything.
I've really lost some respect for C|Net on this one.
No offense at all to grandparent poster if Mark "It's All Good"-fellow is his brother, it would actually be rather comical to find that MG's got a geek in the family.
I believe the issue now is that people are upset that they're having to pay for/subsidize certain channels that they've got no interest in receiving or viewing. Like another poster said, a-la-carte pricing is the right idea, but it's being promoted for the wrong reason.
Here is a link to the Proof of Concept page, which will launch an instance of calc.exe if you're vulnerable. AVG Free caught the exploit in the cached page, but calc.exe ran anyway, even after I deleted the file.
Why didn't I think of that!
If you're doubting the freshness of the term, try searching in Google Groups instead. A usenet search can often give you a better picture of how a term or phrase evolved through culture.
"Black Friday" - 11,000 results dating back to at least 1993.
"Cyber Monday" - 20 results, all but one were indeed posted within the past week. The other one is in Russian, and doesn't actually appear to contain the term.
So, if there was such a thing as "Cyber Monday" prior to this Thanksgiving, nobody seemed to know about it, and they sure as heck weren't discussing it.
Scroll down to the section labelled "Customize Stories on the Homepage," uncheck the checkbox next to the editors you don't want to hear from, and then submit the form using the "Save" button.
On the other hand, intentionally infecting oneself with this spyware in order to avoid other companies' DRM is simply genius, and is a sweet example of how multiple companies' competing DRM schemes will never be successful. Sony's DRM has made it possible to cheat in at least one MMORPM without recourse.
More information is available at NASA's Hurricane Names page.
Anyone who's still unconvinced that this is fully transparent,
dig mx gmail.com
dig mx googlemail.com
To be honest, I hope that Google doesn't waste money on this. Prior comments sum up most of my opinions about the idea of a supposed "Google Office." My documents are my business, I'm not uploading them anywhere, I don't care who owns the server or how much they claim not to be evil. If I want portability, I'll put stuff on a USB pen drive. And I guess most of all, a word processor is a client app.
There's no need to involve the internet in creating documents, spreadsheets, etc. There sure as hell is no reason for a web browser to be any part of the process. You'll have to pry my [wordpad|pico] from my cold, dead hands.