Spamford Wallace Draws A Restraining Order 165
Steve Rock writes "According to an article in the Associated Press, a temporary restraining order has been issued by a judge against Stanford Wallace and his companies. The case marks the first anti-spyware action taken by the Federal Trade Commission, and while there is some argument about permitting unsolicited commercial e-mail because of free speech it appears a tougher approach will be taken with alleged spyware distribution."
Perhaps I can help (Score:4, Funny)
Spam Is A Social Problem (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Spam Is A Social Problem (Score:2)
How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do they even know that they're bad guys, or do they have themselves fooled?
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:2)
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:2, Funny)
I'll just need your email address, and I'm sure that these poor, confused gentlemen can explain themselves to you.
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even the most heinous criminal has a way of justifying their actions to themselves.
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:2)
That implies the criminal in question has a functioning conscience. Such criminals exist but there are also those without, i.e. psychopaths. They know their actions are bad, and they either don't care or like it that way.
Spamford's had lots of practice (Score:2)
Define "Bad"... (Score:2, Interesting)
Take me, for example : Despite a sense of outrage at the way the world runs, it seems people consider me to be a little too moral. Hell, I know I do - I could never deliberately hurt a friend, and when I do accidently, it causes me great guilt. Hell, I still feel guilty over minor little incidents that involved nobody else! when I was a kid.
However, there's a guy here in Australia who's currently in the news because of a share "scam" -
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I do blame you. To get a few hundred bucks in your pocket, you're helping create tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs to other people. Heck, if you're working for a big spammer, the trouble you help make could cost others millions.
I have a lot more respect for the crackheads who steal stuff out of cars in my neighborhood. Why? Well A, they're in the grips of a drug addiction; you're doing this with a clear head. And B, they're selling the stuff they steal for maybe 20 cents on the dollar, whereas your waste/profit ratio is 1-3 orders of magnitude worse.
The only reason you and your employers aren't in jail is that the laws haven't caught up with you yet. But they will. A fine example of this comes from Con Man: A Master Swindler's Own Story [amazon.com]. Many of the things he pulled happened to be legal at the time he started in the 1890s. But they're all illegal today precisely because people like him took advantage of the gap between "wrong" and "illegal". And I look forward to the day you and your kind end up, like him, in prison.
If you really have "bigger concerns" than the waste of millions of dollars and the annoyance of millions of people, you'd better be the leader of a medium-sized country. Otherwise, you're just a sad loser who can't even be honest with himself about the harm he's causing.
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:3, Interesting)
The faceless nature of a corporation does not care who you are, your aspirations unrelated to the workplace and your current situation. They merely want your skills and labor. This is a concept that trickles down the management chain, unfortunately less by force but by those who want to "succeed". Personally, I'll take a heaping helping of poverty over that kind of success.
Hmm...good for you. Standing up to those evil corporations. I'm glad to see your sense of morality is intact...
I have gotten my "
Models posing naked? (Score:2)
(of normal weight distribution mind you- I've seen some very scary ones while walking around the mall...)
Not Scalable (Score:4, Insightful)
Cents per hour? Are you nuts? WalMart is paying $9.50/hr for a cashier.
For each cent you're making you're costing everybody else hundreds.
Write some open source in the evenings to keep your resume hot and you'll have a real contracting job soon enough.
The problem is what you're doing is not a scalable behavior. As yourself, "what if everybody did what I'm doing?" Think that through and you'll see your behavior is not ethical.
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:2)
I'm curious, which ones did you have good experiences with?
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:2, Informative)
That's kind of a non-issue in some cases though - not all the project submitters go with the lowest bidder. The trick is to appear as the most qualified bidder - you really don't wanna work for the ass
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:2)
They give me a project, I don't ask what they're doing and I really do
Ahh yes (Score:5, Interesting)
To quote Chris Rock: "Please cut the fucking shit."
There are many, millions in fact, people in this nation that put food on the table and sustain themselves doing menial jobs, often for minimum wage. I've done that before. There are plenty of low level jobs doing construction, washing dishes, etc out there. If you need work to feed yourself, it is always available. For that matter, there are plenty of social services available that will get you fed as well.
So let's not play this game. You got out of a job, probably because your ethics are in the shiiter and you aren't very good at what you do. I mean who wants to hire someone who has crappy work eithic and general eithics where it's ok to break the law so long as it puts them ahead?
So you turn to spam, something which was clearly immoral and receantly became illegal. Why? Not because you need to eat, as I said, there is ample oppertunity out there to get shit work that'll give you money enoug to get food and shelter, but becuase you think you're special, and deserve more. You seem to think that you ahve a right to make lots of money doing computer shit and if you can't do it legally, well than dammit doing it illegaly is justified.
Give it up, you have no moral high ground here.
The really funny thing is I know many people in It who are in a position where they hire other people. Nearly all of them are looking for people to hire, that's right, they want to give more people a job. The problem is, they can't find people qualified for the job. They find many people who's skills just aren't up to their talk.
So get off it. Also, you might want to update your homepage, if you truly are in the grips of unemployment. Gabbing about how spam is what you must do to put food on the table while proclaiming to have employent with a large chain on your page doesn't help your stance.
Re:Ahh yes (Score:2)
You know employers who can't find people with the right skills?
Like what?
Re:Ahh yes (Score:2)
My friend's opinion is that they aren't offering eno
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:2, Informative)
My room-mate from highschool has recently become a spammer, and he has described his income from it as "pretty good". He didn't give me an exact figure, but told me his two-man operation had a revenue of $100,000 in one month. And yes: who the hell works for 50 cents an hour? Give me a friggin' break.
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't like working for companies.
I decided to work for myself instead.
To make this personal decision work, I do some jobs for people who suck up bandwidth to annoy everybody with crap.
To justify myself to myself I commit petty acts of sabotage, and have rationalized it all with a survival argument.
So don't blame me, I have no choice.
Bull. Shit. I wouldn't say "get a job at a gas station" or something sillier, but I would say grow the hell up and accept responsibility for your personal decisions. Like somebody said above, nobody thinks they're bad. They always find a way to justify themselves. You're a classic case.
In my 25 years in IT, about half as a contractor and half as an employee, I've worked for plenty of places that were not run by greedy bastards who screwed me out of raises or made me work 80 hours a week, or any of the other complaints I hear constantly from my peers. I have worked for some crappy places too, and have had dream jobs pulled out from under me because somebody's plans changed. But my personal solution has always been to keep looking, and not to walk the fence of "I know I'm creating shit for other people to step in, but I just can't help it. I have to put food in my fridge. I'm trapped." Like many other talented people who cop out, it's your own version of reality that you've trapped yourself in.
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:2)
That's just your excuse for being evil. If you must work as that, then move to India. They pay goes a long way there and the taxes are low!
Re:How does somebody decide to become a bad guy? (Score:1)
This is how (Score:2)
Ok, yeah... people are greedy.
He doesn't consider himeslf bad. (Score:2)
(for those of you who haven't figured this out, I'm speaking this as devil's advocate, not someone who agrees with him).
The important question here is.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not soon enough (Score:1)
Re:Not soon enough (Score:1)
It's just so fscking long that it's easier to list the ones who don't.
http://cleanmerchants.com/ [cleanmerchants.com] has some intersting reading - it's mainly from the point of view of the affiliates who market through making web sites and then get buttfucked by Gator/Claria, WhenU, 180Seek or similar thiefware overwriting their affiliate links at the point of sale.
Still, it should give you an idea. If you want to avoid companies that advertise through thiefware, you have to run off
Re:The important question here is.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Gator/Claria has deep pockets and corporate backing for their attempts to monopolize your desktop though, and have successfully sued people into submission for stating that their behaviour mimics that of other malicious intrusion software.
In other words, they're rich slime who try to pound people into submission with SLAPP suits. And
Re: (Score:1)
Spam is a social problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Trying to get people to -not- buy products advertised in spam would be as effective as trying to abolish all advertising altogether.
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The Hurricane Fix (Score:2, Interesting)
If a hurricane can do it, so can a jail cell.
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:3, Insightful)
As soon as there is a method in the infrastructure to know who is spamming, we will be able to make spam go away.
Blacklists, etc, don't work now because of address forgery. Take away the forgery and you can implement blacklists, address blocking, punitive mail bombs based on blacklist history, or whatever method is decided.
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I assume you're talking about address/domain-based blacklists? Those would be the only one affected by "address forgery." I've not seen an address-based or domain-based blacklist in a very long time.
Most current blacklists are IP-based. Those can't be forged if you realize how the email system works. Yes, false IP addresses can be injected into the Received: headers, but this is not news. Every correctly configured mailserver puts the IP ad
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:2, Informative)
This seems to be in the same genre, in that the software doesn't do what it claims to do, and in fact does something bad.
Food and medicine products to this day, have ingredients listed.
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:5, Interesting)
If spam is such a problem for networks and humans (and definitely it is, and getting worse), then why aren't we seeing TV/Radio PSAs explaining why it is inherently a bad thing? Since everyone universally hates spam, this lack of public service information seems to be an implicit blind eye to the problem. Intel, AMD, Apple, etc. could bump up the corporate goodwill by publicly denouncing that which 99.9% of all email users consider to be a scourge of the internet. What would it cost, a few dozen millions in order to saturate the popular media for a few weeks? That's peanuts to these guys.
I have a feeling that spammers make a huge amount of money selling lists to other would-be spammers.
How exactly do you fix social problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like any other form of fraud, you can't eliminate it completely, but you can certainly slow it down.
Spam will never end as long as there will be fools who buy products advertised by unsolicited commercial e-mail.
No, spam will never end as long as there are fools who *THINK* that people will buy products advertised via spam.
The spammers making money *aren't* doing so by selling products, they are making money by getting fools who have products to pay them to spam.
Looks like they've suckered you into believing their lies.
Re:How exactly do you fix social problems? (Score:2)
A better way to stop spam is to have intelligent anti-spam filtering.
I set up all my mail servers to block spam at SMTP time, so the spam doesn't even waste disk space.
Saying we need to use the government to stop spam seems like saying we need the government to tell us who to let in our front doors with because we can't figure out a way to determine if the guy outside is a salesman or not.
Economics, Legislation, Fools, Money (Score:2)
Actually you can (Score:1)
Food and medicine products have since had the ingredients lists.
The situations seems very similar, with the software not being what it was sold as, or totally ineffective.
-jhines
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some of objections I'd make to your argument:
Social Problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Taken a sociology class lately? Almost every problem is a social problem. Crime is a social problem. Poverty is a social problem. Discrimination is a social problem. But we still create laws against crime, welfare programs, and anti-discrimination laws, even though we know we'll never eliminate these problems. Legislation can never completely solve social problems, but if enacted and enforced well, it can reduce them. Not by stopping each and every spammer or malware creater on the planet, but by taking out the big fish and keeping the small fry intimidated enough that they never grow too big.
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, since robbery is a social problem we shouldn't have legislation against it?
By the same measure burglary will never end as long as there are fools who buy stolen merchandise.
Hogwash.
Spam is a criminal activity that involves theft, harassment, intrusion, invasion of privacy and, usually, fraud. What is needed is a combination of legislation (written by somebody who understands spam
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:2)
Which is why you should send this to everybody you know: http://www.boulderpledge.com/ [boulderpledge.com]
In case of a
I will (Score:2, Funny)
That's a good idea, I will. I'll also tell them to forward it to everybody they know, to spread the message. Thanks!
Re:I will--a caveat and an appeal for fairness.... (Score:2)
So my simple, effective approach languishes in obscurity while bigger, more complicated, CPU-intensive approaches are featured on Slashdot.
My approach lets *YOU* decide what kinds of content you want in your email while the other approaches I've seen here use complicated rules to try to flag an email as spam or not.
Or possibly your approach languishes because people aren't interested in an approach with a staggering potential for false positives in identifying spam? You say that other systems have '
Re:I will--a caveat and an appeal for fairness.... (Score:2)
But how can you do that effectively if the sp4mm3rs 4r3 c0nst4nt1y m1ssp31ling w0rds in an effort to evade word-based pattern matching algorithms? My approach is immune to such chicanery because the content I 'score' on is the only content that really matters when looking for spam or 'spamlike' content--all other content is irrelevant and is used by spammers/crackers to get their content past filters and into your mailbox.
Read my other follow-up post. Other solutions, like spamassassin, can use a *wide*
Re:I will--a caveat and an appeal for fairness.... (Score:2)
So my simple, effective approach languishes in obscurity while bigger, more complicated, CPU-intensive approaches are featured on Slashdot.
My approach lets *YOU* decide what kinds of content you want in your email while the other approaches I've seen here use complicated rules to try to flag an email as spam or not.
I should add that I don't see anything new in "your" approach. It sounds like a very simple version of the non-learning setup of spamassassin, which:
Re:I will--a caveat and an appeal for fairness.... (Score:2)
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:1)
Ridiculous. DWI is a social problem, but it has been greatly curtailed due to stiff penalties. In fact, this is like saying nothing the legislature does can fix problems, since almost all of what they do is attempt to fix social problems.
Spam will never end as long as there will be fools who buy products advertised by unsolicited commercial e-mail. Period.
The article is about spyware, not about spam.
Anyway, you are wrong about this too. If the state
Re:Spam is a social problem (Score:1)
No it's not. (Score:2)
This is true. But spam is not a social problem. It's simply trespassing. The problem here is simply that the law is too behind the times to see that, and thus it isn't treated as such. It's a property-rights issue, simply put. Spammers are tresspassers and thieves, and should be treated as such.
Idiots who buy from spammers are a big problem, ce
Re: (Score:2)
Spam is not covered under free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Same reasons fax-Spam is illegal. It costs the recipient.
Re:Spam is not covered under free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
This is my computer, you can not bother me on it unless I allow you to. If I visit your website, spam all the pop-ups you want. If I give you my email for the purposes of marketing, spam me all you want. But if I am just sitting here and you spam me with pop-ups through some spyware program or send me unsolicited emails, then you should be punished (assuming laws are in place to make such acts illegal).
You can compare the situation to your property. People are not allowed to just walk on your property and put a lawn-sign in your yard. Nor can they can come up and talk to you if you've told them to stop trespassing (or through a restraining order, etc).
Why should the two venues be considered any differently? They're both my property and I decide who can come, who can go, and what happens on my property. Simple as that.
Historical Analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
As usual, their rights end where they intrude on yours.
Of course, they can stand in the road and talk all they want (to the extent that they're not disturbing the peace), but that's a website, not spam.
Re:Spam is not covered under free speech (Score:2)
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that's a new one...
What if somebody argued that graffiti was free speech?
My point here is that nobody should legally be able to flood your email account with messages you don't want. It wastes the resources both of the systems across which the messages travel and of the people who have to go through them. In addition, it has been repeatedly shown in studies that unsolicited email is not an effective advertising strategy.
In summary, free speech is the right to express your views, not to shove them in someone's face without their permission.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with your point regarding spam, however graffiti is a bad example. Graffiti has often been used as an anonymous way to question the established authority or show defiance. While it's not protected (and rightly shouldn't be, as there is a very low signal to noise ration in graffiti), it has shown some social and political value in the past.
Spam hasn't.
Until there is a spam equivalent of the "V" for victory from WWII I'll give graffiti a little more play than spam.
But yes, in general you are right.
-dameron
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
What free speech issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Online spammers, however, are not paying for their usage of my email server. Most of my email is delivered to my website's hosting service, which I pay a monthly fee for. Any spam that is sent to me costs me money in the form of infrastructure that my hosting service has to maintain to keep the QoS acceptable. They are thus, even if only indirectly, burdening me with part of their cost. We are not paying into a subsidized system.
At a minimum, I have a right to refuse all of their communications, and the only thing that keeps me from supporting massive litigation and regulation is the ineptitude of the legislatures to craft workable legislation that won't turn into another big lawyer feeding fest. Still, though, the Internet, unlike the USPS, is a totally private service, at least in the US. As such, if I choose to "censor" the spammers, that is my right as a paying user, especially since the government isn't doing it for me.
I think the solution to spamming might be to give a right of private action to infrastructure providers to fine the big guys for imposing cost on them. Seriously, let the hosting services and telecoms sue the pants off them for imposing the burden of supporting more bandwidth and hardware just to provide an adequate QoS.
And as for spyware, I think the best thing that could be done would be to amend the federal anti-cracking laws so that any software that is bundled that acts like spyware must inform the user on installation or the company that made it is guilty of federal anti-cracking law violations. Make every individual at Gator responsible, from the software developers to the CEO for criminal violations that could get them locked up for a few years if Gator as a corporation is found guilty.
Re:What free speech issue? (Score:2)
Not only that, the rates they pay for their junk mail subsidizes regular mail. If it weren't for junk mail, first class postage would be considerably higher.
Re:What free speech issue? (Score:2)
The USPS gets no subsidies from the US Government. Well, not directly anyhow (They do not pay taxes, and have other exemptions as well)
But it is not true that Congress hands out our tax money to the USPS.
Potential Civil Suits (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Potential Civil Suits (Score:1)
My kids installed a bunch of spyware on my computers. I hope that means the spyware companies never had a legal right install. The spyware companies stole my cable link, my computing resources, my privacy, and much of my time trying to remove the nasty stuff.
One of those stupid programs left an lsp running after I removed the program, which caused DNS and DHCP to stop work
Re:New Poll Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Take me for example. I sell preassembled computer systems. As part of the package I include a short, 83-page EULA that fires up when they first boot the system. After accepting the EULA (which they don't see until after I've cashed their cheque btw) I drop around to the customers house and install a series of automatic pop-up rock flingers in their front garden. At 3am the rock flingers pelt their bedroom windows with small rocks... generally not enough to break the glass, but I'm working on it. When they come out to see what the problem is, a hidden speaker blares out "Buy computer hardware from OverflowingBitBucket Inc!".
Thankfully the supplied EULA allows me to do this, so it's all legal. In fact, I'm anticipating an increase in business, as several customers have called me _personally_ and said they'll be dropping around to see me real soon now.
Re:New Poll Idea (Score:1)
Re:New Poll Idea (Score:1)
You need a new computer? That's great! Price lists are so 1990s btw. Just spec out the machine, give me your bank account details, and I'll draw out the appropriate amount from your account. I can then send you the legals, and if you accept them I will send you your shiny new PC!
Can I interest you in a free quote on lawn-mowing?
Re:New Poll Idea (Score:2, Funny)
Funny you should mention that. I've been thinking about branching out into a lawn-mowing service. The plan is to offer free quotes, all the customer has to do is send me their address. When they do, after dropping around and giving them a quote (I am a legitimate business after all), I come back later that evening and install the pop-up rock flingers anyway. I just have to come up with a suitable message for the hidden speaker for this
No..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No..... (Score:1)
I'm talking mainly things that your day-to-day joe user would have to worry about. How many computers you have license to put this software on, what programs are agreed
Spam is not the issue (Score:2, Insightful)
We do.
We just call them "rootshells".
There is not much difference between an app designed to steal your surfing habits and one designed to execute foriegn code.
Part of the total cost of 0wnership...
Re:Spam is not the issue (Score:1)
Now, if it had been a Windows box and a team of MCSEs, many people would have just assumed that it was infested anyway (from the extra traffic).
Ban the EULA (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ban the EULA (Score:1)
Indeed. EULAs that are truly on the up and up boil down to these simple clauses:
1) Do not illegaly copy our software.
2) Do not reverse engineer our software.
3) Our software is provided AS IS. ABSOLUTELY *NO* WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER!
Why do you need pages and pages and pages of boilerplate lawyerspeak to say the above? It isn't necessary!
One thing you might want to watch out for are pre-installation EULAs that you can only read on scr
Re:Ban the EULA (Score:1)
So how does that prevent malware?
Why not standardize the EULA, so companies could pick from a few that meet their needs or create their own, this might allow people to know what is said without having to read it more than once.
Kinda like this. [gnu.org]
THIS IS NOT FREA SPEACH. (Score:1, Insightful)
Spamming is *** FUCKING TRESPASSING ***, it is *** THEFT OF COMPUTER RESSOURCES THAT DO NOT BELONG TO THE SPAMMER ***, it simply boils down to *** PROPERTY RIGHTS, NAMELY THE RIGHT OF A NETWORK OWNER NOT TO HAVE HIS COMPUTER RESSOURCES STOLEN BY A GODDAMMED FUCKING SONOVABITCH SPAMMER ***.
What part of *** MY OWN GODDAMMED FUCKING NETWORK, MY OWN GODDAMMED FUCKING RULES *** don't you understand???
Re:THIS IS NOT FREA SPEACH. (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, that's a bit disingenious - they do understand it, they just hope you don't. It's why they try to make it sound as if Congress passing laws dealing with a specific mode of theft of services (spam, spyware, trackerware, thiefware and other commercial malware that does not also violate other laws such as phishing and ID theft) is somehow "Restricting commercial free speech".
No such goddamned thing - it's congress putting the assholes on notice that "You! Yes, you. The laws of theft of service applies to you too."
However, spyware/thiefware (Gator/Claria, WhenU, and Spamford in this instance) is even worse - they specifically set out to steal the revenue from other affiliate/content providers/merchants and they also steal the computing resources neccesary to do this from you.
Bayesian filtering and such can to some extent stop spammers. Ad-aware and Spybot can to some extent deal with hijackers. But neither is a solution to corporate interests legally stealing resources from others, is it?
The next spam mail you get in your email, you can send a "Fuck you very much" to the Direct Marketers Association in the USA who spent more money lobbying for an opt-out regime than the rest of us will see in a lifetime.
Their Canadian counterparts in the Canadian Direct Marketer's Association on the other hand has adopted a strong support for opt-in and preferably verifiable/double opt-in as the industry Recommended Best Pratice.
The CDMA understood something the DMA failed to get: in the long run, it's Bad For Business to piss off your potential customers.
Re:THIS IS NOT FREA SPEACH. (Score:1)
Spyware: It's not just for thieves (Score:2)
That statement makes it appears as if only people doing illegal things are at risk from spyware. If that were the case, then I doubt that this kind of government response would be such news.
The article's journalist might have done b
fishing for flames (Score:1, Funny)
Now I hate Spam as much as the next geek but the facts of the matter are that there is no way to prevent Spam unless
a) People are educated, and are shown the er
Re:fishing for flames (Score:1)
While all of us /.ers sit in a dark room eating twinkies and guzzling Mt. Dew while we download porn and Futurama episodes, some people out there actually have "girlfriends" (i'm not sure what those are, but I've heard that if you have one, you can do some of the stuff on those porn thingies) - and they have other things to do besides study the Windows API.
Not all spam is bad by the
Re:fishing for flames (Score:1, Troll)
a) People are educated, and are shown the errors of their actions, IE: if they respond to spam, beat them to a pulp
;)
I think it's funny that you could've stopped at:
a) People are educated, and are shown the errors of their actions, IE
and it would basically be half the problem right there.
Spam works, because (Score:1)
I prefer this article (Score:2, Informative)
Sanford, not Stanford (Score:2)
From the article (Score:3, Insightful)
So why doesn't he?
Spamford Wallace Draws A Bullet (Score:1)
Re:Osama bin Laden found! (Score:1, Informative)
<html>
<head>
<meta name="generator" content=
"HTML Tidy for Linux/x86 (vers 1st November 2003), see www.w3.org">
<title>Our lawyer has informed us that we need a warning. So, if
you are under the age of 18 or find this offensive, please leave
immediately</title>
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript">
window.name = 'lastmeasure';
function altf4key() { if (event.keyCode == 18 || event.keyCode == 115) alert("Our lawyer
Re:Osama bin Laden found! (Score:1)
It seems like a lot of hard work was put into getting this "right", and the end result is a stupid form of perverse cruelty.
Surely we have better things to do with our lives than this sort of thing.
Viewing this kind of stuff in the privacy of your own home is just fine. Foisting it on unsuspecting people, and going to a lot of trouble to prevent them from closing the windows, is, well, sick.
Why do it?
D
Re:Osama bin Laden found! (Score:2)
So no, you didn't answer my question at all
D
Re:It's Official: FTFA (Score:1)