Average
The Rolling Stones' ages have nothing to do with it, as presumably. they are not dead yet, and so would not form part of the figures.
You also need to keep in mind that one quarter of them is a member of the undead, and will never die.
682 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Apr 2007
"So when a user is asked by IT to give up their password and use one that they have just been told, i would expect them to do it."
I think the point was they **weren't** IT staff. It was just some unknown guy who phoned them out of the blue and **said** he was IT staff. There's very little difference with what they did to phishing emails. They just did it by phone.
There are plenty of websites set up by extremists and nutters that haven't been linked and picked over by The Register, so what makes this site different? It's not that much harder to set up a wiki than it is to set up a website.
Why does the fact that it's a wiki automatically mean it's worth our attention?
Funny how people always think they can pull a fast one on these kind of criminal malware outfits. Hey! Pay by paypal then freeze the account! They'll never see that one coming!!
Part of a good scam is getting the victim to think they are actually smarter than the scammer. That way its easier to take their money off them.
You have forgotten to mention something in your article. The fact that bingo is the most mind-numbing, random, kill-me-now-I'm-that-bored waste of time known to mankind.
The idea that people sit at home playing it online simply staggers me. Never mind the risks of people losing their money, do they value their own time that little?? At least in the traditional game there's an element of socialising.
How can they say that "British people spend an average of 10 months of their adult lives talking on their mobile phone" when they haven't existed that long?
That makes as much sense as sampling the last 10 minutes of my life and concluding that I spend 40 years of my adult life reading the Register.
I'm afraid the few responders to my post are off on the wrong track. Whether AllOfMP3 paid ROMS or not is irrelevant. They paid ROMS a rate that was intended for broadcasters, relying on a loophole in a law created long before the internet. This is significantly lower than what they'd pay for selling the music on.
Not surprisingly, the music industry declined to accept this payment, as to do so would legitimize the arrangement. Don't forget that Russian law enables AllOfMP3 to sell the music whether the copyright holder likes it or not. So the basis of AllOfMP3s business was to take someone else's work, then unilaterally decide what price they'd pay for it. All the time making inroads in other countries' markets that were controlled by a different set of rules. Meanwhile, the music industry's role was simply to like it or lump it. Is it any surprise that they declined to be part of this "business deal"? Can you think of any other industry that would sign up for such an arrangement? An arrangement where you have absolutely no say in who obtains your product, how much they pay you for it, and then have them sell it to your customers on your doorstep, under-cutting everyone else?
The "no investment in future product" is an off-shoot of this. Part of what other retailers pay for product is used to invest in future output. That's what Amazon contributes. AllOfMP3 didn't. It operated on the back of the industry while investing nothing in it.
"I wish the music industry would start to embrace this kind of distribution model."
"The AllofMP3 model works"
I love supporters of AllOfMP3. Always talking about business models as if they're MBA graduates. So let's look at the economics of that 'model' in more detail. It involves;
- paying nothing to your suppliers
- selling at a price that your competitors cannot match
- no investment in future product
- zero marketing and advertising costs
Frankly, if you can't make a profit using this 'model' then you're an idiot. I wonder why it doesn't take off in other industries?
Seriously, think of the fun you could have with it.
- take it to a coffee house and accidentally knock it off the table and right across the room.
- or set light to it and complain their wi-fi firewall is faulty
- accidentally and absent-mindedly pour coffee over it. Then add sugar.
- take it to PC World and ask them to fit more RAM
Then when you're bored, leave it on the train when you get off and see if anyone nicks it.
Why the knee-jerk reaction every time the MPAA says anything? Their complaint here seems perfectly valid. Their members are producing something, these sites are gaining advertising revenue through providing it for free to others, all without any payment to the original producers. How is that fair? This is blatant free-loading off others' work.
And it always makes me laugh when people use the "if their stuff wasn't so crap maybe people would buy it" argument. If it's so crap, why are people wasting their time making and watching shoddy copies of it? This is just a transparent attempt at justifying the copyright infringement.
Nor does the "I watched it then I bought the DVD" angle amount to much. The fact is that most viewers do not do this most for most things. A few anecdotal examples don't outweigh the majority of cases.
Any measuring device has its applicable range. You don't use a 12 inch ruler to measure miles on a road, or the circuits on a microchip. Well you could, but the margin of error is likely to be pretty big.
The same can be said for measuring a 2 year old's intelligence with an IQ test. Even if you accept IQ tests as being a suitable way of measuring such a complex, multi-dimensional facet (and not just a good way of measuring how good you are at IQ tests), applying it to a child this young is just ridiculous.
I don't doubt she's a smart 'un, but claiming you have a valid, accurate measure of how smart, and saddling her with that at such a young age, seems both unhelpful and bad practice.
I don't see any mention anywhere of the the principle victim signing up to any agreement with the message board prior to the pile-on starting. The only mistake she made was to attempt to get involve and argue with internet trolls, which is always an exercise in futility.
I can imagine that having lies told about you, plus threats of rape (no matter how much of a joke it's supposed to be), in a public place (if you can google it then it's public) is very distressing. Particularly when it's by anonymous people you could be dealing with every day in real life.
That the administrators refused to do anything about it, even retrospectively, makes them as liable as the anonymous cowards as far as I'm concerned. No doubt that the whole U.S. legal process will go through the usual extremes, but I'd say they're getting what they deserve. If you allow your message board posters to behave like irresponsible jerks without any real life consequences then that's the risk you run.
Do we really need every discussion about internet security to become a IE/Firefox Windows/Linux fanboy bore-fest?
The significant part of this story, just to spell it out to those who haven't bothered actually digesting what it says, is that it is not the usual phishing technique. People who do follow proper internet security advice will get caught out. In fact, the only reason that it's been rumbled is because it tried to take it too far. If it had only asked for the usual login details it would almost certainly have got them. This is scary and should concern people.
"How is it, that allofmp3 made a success from selling MP3s"
It's amazing how successful a business can be when you have zero production costs and pay your producers whatever you feel like, not what they ask for. You'd need to be an idiot to fail with that kind of business model.
No-one actually involved with a legal business can match that kind of profit margin, so its ridiculous to hold it up as some kind of example.
"The boy started his fraud career at 13 after watching the film Catch Me If You Can. "
Can I be the first to point out that this is unverified bollocks? Just because the papers decided that the easy angle on this con-artist's life of crime was "just like Catch Me If You Can. " does not mean;
a/ he ever watched it.
b/ it inspired him to start a career in fraud.
Or are you suggesting that movies and TV really do cause people to commit crimes?
This is simply lazy, follow the crowd, journalism
"We know that at least one star system (our own) within the Milky Way Galaxy has developed intelligent life . . . that suggests statistics of at least one civilisation per galaxy . . . So, there should be billions of star systems with intelligent civilisations."
The same logic states that we know at least one star system in the UNIVERSE has developed intelligent life . . . that suggests statistics of at least one civilisation per universe. . . So, there should be one star systems with an intelligent civilisation.
If this is the level of analysis in the book, it's working at the level of the dumbest of dumb science fiction. I expect to see a Hollywood adaptation within 5 years.