When the story first broke this evening, bloggers wrote about it and noted the fact that their www.dellbatteryprogram.com was not up and running yet. Yes, I was among those bloggers.
Soon after the Dell battery posts started appearing, someone from Dell corporate was following Technorati and visited my blog. Not too long after that, Dell responded on their blog with details about the recall. And they even mentioned that the recall Web site will be live after midnight Central Time tonight.
and hire a new web designer. When the lawsuit was announced in March, I did a quickie SEO analysis on their site and from the few minutes I spent, I found quite a few reasons why they plunged in GOOGLE SERPS. Basically, they weren't following accepted SEO practices (at least prior to the suit that was filed). Here's the most important part of my analysis.
What bothers me is that I'm taking a look at the site, and quite frankly, it's underwhelming. First of all, this kinderStart site bills itself as a "search engine". I could point out a number of SEO issues with the site, starting with the appearance of the site, to the use of frames on the top menu, to the lack of easily discoverable sitemaps (no xml, txt nor static html sitemap page), no robots.txt at the site root directory, all the way down to the copyright date in the footer (as of this writing, it says "Copyright 2000 KinderStart.Com, Inc.").
Little wonder that a page with a copyright date of 2000 has had a decrease in visitor traffic during the past 6 years. Give me a break, people.
Plus, many of the SEO practices that KinderStart.com ignores are listed in the Google Information for Webmasters page.
As far as bad MMR batches go, there was knowledge that the MMR vaccines given in the mid 1970s were possibly ineffective.
How I found this out was at a pre-college physical back in 1992, I got another MMR dose "just in case" because I was a female of childbearing age. Anyway, a few years later, when I was in school, there were cases of measles on several different college campuses, which lead to universities demanding proof of immunization before registering for classes.
OK Mr Doubting Thomas... the hack was disclosed on Full Disclosure on May 23rd.
There is lot of hype about WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) when Microsoft builds functionality in its few of the public beta products to conduct a genuine product check before the product gets installed. MS products or tools with WGA check enabled can only be installed on a valid / genuine copy of MS Windows XP. Incase it is a pirated copy then the product denies to install.
If you are aware of Microsoft WGA validation then you can directly jump in to the PoC section otherwise it is advisable to read on WGA and what it does before reading the PoC.
Defeating Microsoft WGA Validation Check - Proof of Concept (PoC)
This PoC explains how Microsoft WGA validation check can be defeated and any Microsoft product with the WGA validation feature can be run and installed on machines running pirated copy of Windows XP. To bypass WGA validation check, one can run "GenuineCheck.exe" file on a machine running a copy of an authentic Windows XP for generating a key code. This key code generated on the machine running genuine copy of Win XP can be used to circumvent the WGA check on the machine running a pirated copy of Win XP.
Microsoft in its reply to my mail specified that "The generated code is partly made up of a timestamp, which would prevent use after a short period". However, I checked this on a pirated copy of Windows XP Pro and installed couple of public beta products and tools for testing purpose. They are still up and running since past 1.5 months.
Incase, anyone is going to try this out on their pirated versions of Win XP then do let me know if the installed product make noise after certain time period.
Because some retailers don't care what the retribution will be from the supplier (like, oh, sorry I have no idea where your shipment went...) and want the sale now.
MAPs are illegal, but we have yet to see Elliot Spitzer - or another publicity seeking attorney general go after manufacturers who strong arm retailers.
(I work for a retailer that has to deal with these MAP prices...oh the stories I could tell...)
I manage a few e-commerce sites and I see roughly the same types of percentages the poster above is quoting.
For example, 90 day stats for one of my sites indicates 1% for msn as opposed to google which is 40% of my referrers.
Now which search engine do you think I optimize SEO for?
Actually, at the turn of the year UPS started offering "ground" to hawaii and alaska.
I should know, my shipping department had to educate the local UPS folks about this.
Re:Google's Process Seems Pretty Standard to Me
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
2. Amazon will hire hardcore hackers, even if they don't have perfect academic credentials. Stuff like sucess in Open Source project is way up there at Amazon.
Well, shit, *that* certainly explains the concept behind the Seller Central interface.
There is no Mac AOL for broadband client. Thusly, if one did happen to use a Mac and wanted to use, oh say, AIM for videoconferencing, folks cannot.
Thusly, the musing about cross-platform iChat support does come into play.
After lots of complaining from new PowerBook users, it seems that Apple changed the qualifying criteria (from just new G5 users to G5 and new 15" PB users) quietly the same day of the announcement. Rumors of this quiet change were found in certain Mac discussion site forums.
Thusly, I have my invoice for an Up To Date copy.
A friend showed me this forum over at MacRumors where some people who purchased new updated PowerBooks in September were reportedly able to qualify for the upgrade.
Of course, hearing about this, I immediately went to the up to date page at the Apple store to qualify my new PowerBook which I purchased in September. My machine was qualified for the $20 upgrade and I promptly ordered it.
I purchased an updated 15" PowerBook on September 17th and I feel the same way as you do, especially because G5s were grandfathered in the Up To Date program. It's one thing about a cutoff date, quite another when one model gets upgraded and the other doesn't. And I'm especially pissed that I waited for three months to order the most up to date machine I could, and then get told this.
I don't mind spending money for quality, but I just freakin' spent $2700 three weeks ago.
This is far from a smear tactic in that the Dean campaign had been contacted prior to the story submission. (My friend contacted them last week about the spam and never heard a response.) And if we had heard a response back, I still would have blogged the story and prominently noted the Dean campaign response.
And surprisingly enough, as of this writing, there has been nothing on the Dean blog or the DeanForAmerica Web site about the spams nor the cutting of ties with the marketing partners.
Just to let you know, the dates on the two spams I've seen are August 14th and August 15th respectively. I've posted the headers for the August 14th spam on my site, which I'm sure you've seen by now.
Also, are you guys going to put a press release out on the site noting that the campaign has terminated the relationship with emailresults.net and eScriptions.com? Those are the two vendors you are referring to, correct?
The emails I am talking about are dated Thursday, August 14th, 2003 and Friday, August 15th, 2003. Also, I changed the brackets to square so the data inside would so.
Spam 1---
Return-Path: [dean@america.propulsive.net]
Received: from 109.ts8.increments.net ([69.41.70.109])
by bill's mailserver (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h7EL26R23408
for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:02:06 -0500
To: bill's email
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:12:08 -0500
Message-ID: [1060895528.4360@109.ts8.increments.net]
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
From: "DeanForAmerica.com" [dean@america.propulsive.net]
Reply-To: "DeanForAmerica.com"[dean@america.propulsive.net]
Subject: Presidential Candidate Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
Spam 2---
Return-Path: [dean@for.accomplishing.net]
Received: from 148.ts8.increments.net ([69.41.70.148])
by bill's mailserver (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h7FIVpT01949
for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:31:51 -0500
To: bill's email
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:42:07 -0500
Message-ID: [1060972927.7349@148.ts8.increments.net]
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2us
From: "DeanForAmerica.com" [dean@for.accomplishing.net]
Reply-To: "DeanForAmerica.com" [dean@for.accomplishing.net]
Subject: Presidential Candidate Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
Not that these folks are any better, but it appears that emailresults.net (WHOISSPEWS results) and propulsive.net/surfplex.net are not related to each other.
but then again, the theory depends on none of the Dean Web team checking server logs and wondering why there are strange referrers for their registration page.
Slashdot Mirror
When the story first broke this evening, bloggers wrote about it and noted the fact that their www.dellbatteryprogram.com was not up and running yet. Yes, I was among those bloggers.
Soon after the Dell battery posts started appearing, someone from Dell corporate was following Technorati and visited my blog. Not too long after that, Dell responded on their blog with details about the recall. And they even mentioned that the recall Web site will be live after midnight Central Time tonight.
As far as bad MMR batches go, there was knowledge that the MMR vaccines given in the mid 1970s were possibly ineffective. How I found this out was at a pre-college physical back in 1992, I got another MMR dose "just in case" because I was a female of childbearing age. Anyway, a few years later, when I was in school, there were cases of measles on several different college campuses, which lead to universities demanding proof of immunization before registering for classes.
hacking is clever.
OK Mr Doubting Thomas ... the hack was disclosed on Full Disclosure on May 23rd.
p x?displaylang=en
w ga-check.zip
There is lot of hype about WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) when Microsoft builds functionality in its few of the public beta products to conduct a genuine product check before the product gets installed. MS products or tools with WGA check enabled can only be installed on a valid / genuine copy of MS Windows XP. Incase it is a pirated copy then the product denies to install.
If you are aware of Microsoft WGA validation then you can directly jump in to the PoC section otherwise it is advisable to read on WGA and what it does before reading the PoC.
To know more about WGA, refer to the following Microsoft link: http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.as
Defeating Microsoft WGA Validation Check - Proof of Concept (PoC) This PoC explains how Microsoft WGA validation check can be defeated and any Microsoft product with the WGA validation feature can be run and installed on machines running pirated copy of Windows XP. To bypass WGA validation check, one can run "GenuineCheck.exe" file on a machine running a copy of an authentic Windows XP for generating a key code. This key code generated on the machine running genuine copy of Win XP can be used to circumvent the WGA check on the machine running a pirated copy of Win XP.
A detailed approach can be downloaded from the following link - http://www.hackingspirits.com/vuln-rnd/defeating-
Microsoft in its reply to my mail specified that "The generated code is partly made up of a timestamp, which would prevent use after a short period". However, I checked this on a pirated copy of Windows XP Pro and installed couple of public beta products and tools for testing purpose. They are still up and running since past 1.5 months.
Incase, anyone is going to try this out on their pirated versions of Win XP then do let me know if the installed product make noise after certain time period.
ð Debasis Mohanty ð www.hackingspirits.com
Because some retailers don't care what the retribution will be from the supplier (like, oh, sorry I have no idea where your shipment went...) and want the sale now.
MAPs are illegal, but we have yet to see Elliot Spitzer - or another publicity seeking attorney general go after manufacturers who strong arm retailers.
(I work for a retailer that has to deal with these MAP prices...oh the stories I could tell...)
I manage a few e-commerce sites and I see roughly the same types of percentages the poster above is quoting. For example, 90 day stats for one of my sites indicates 1% for msn as opposed to google which is 40% of my referrers. Now which search engine do you think I optimize SEO for?
Actually, at the turn of the year UPS started offering "ground" to hawaii and alaska. I should know, my shipping department had to educate the local UPS folks about this.
2. Amazon will hire hardcore hackers, even if they don't have perfect academic credentials. Stuff like sucess in Open Source project is way up there at Amazon.
Well, shit, *that* certainly explains the concept behind the Seller Central interface.
There is no Mac AOL for broadband client. Thusly, if one did happen to use a Mac and wanted to use, oh say, AIM for videoconferencing, folks cannot. Thusly, the musing about cross-platform iChat support does come into play.
After lots of complaining from new PowerBook users, it seems that Apple changed the qualifying criteria (from just new G5 users to G5 and new 15" PB users) quietly the same day of the announcement. Rumors of this quiet change were found in certain Mac discussion site forums. Thusly, I have my invoice for an Up To Date copy.
Of course, hearing about this, I immediately went to the up to date page at the Apple store to qualify my new PowerBook which I purchased in September. My machine was qualified for the $20 upgrade and I promptly ordered it.
I don't mind spending money for quality, but I just freakin' spent $2700 three weeks ago.
I complained to Apple about the discrepancy, you should too.
I had checked this last week, I early last week SiteFinder was enabled and by Friday it had gotten blocked by Earthlink.
This is far from a smear tactic in that the Dean campaign had been contacted prior to the story submission. (My friend contacted them last week about the spam and never heard a response.) And if we had heard a response back, I still would have blogged the story and prominently noted the Dean campaign response. And surprisingly enough, as of this writing, there has been nothing on the Dean blog or the DeanForAmerica Web site about the spams nor the cutting of ties with the marketing partners.
go check the headers of the particular spam or better yet, go check the the HTML source.
Also, are you guys going to put a press release out on the site noting that the campaign has terminated the relationship with emailresults.net and eScriptions.com? Those are the two vendors you are referring to, correct?
Spam 1---
Return-Path: [dean@america.propulsive.net]
Received: from 109.ts8.increments.net ([69.41.70.109])
by bill's mailserver (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h7EL26R23408
for ; Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:02:06 -0500
To: bill's email
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:12:08 -0500
Message-ID: [1060895528.4360@109.ts8.increments.net]
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
From: "DeanForAmerica.com" [dean@america.propulsive.net]
Reply-To: "DeanForAmerica.com"[dean@america.propulsive.net]
Subject: Presidential Candidate Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
Spam 2---
Return-Path: [dean@for.accomplishing.net] Received: from 148.ts8.increments.net ([69.41.70.148])
by bill's mailserver (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h7FIVpT01949
for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 13:31:51 -0500
To: bill's email Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 14:42:07 -0500
Message-ID: [1060972927.7349@148.ts8.increments.net]
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre2us
From: "DeanForAmerica.com" [dean@for.accomplishing.net]
Reply-To: "DeanForAmerica.com" [dean@for.accomplishing.net]
Subject: Presidential Candidate Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html
Not that these folks are any better, but it appears that emailresults.net (WHOIS SPEWS results) and propulsive.net/surfplex.net are not related to each other.
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?