DailyDirt: Mostly Harmless Scams…

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There’s cheating, and then there’s cheating. There are obviously bad scams that hurt people or involve the loss of significant amounts of money or property, but some scams are hurtful on a much smaller scale. Here are just a few notable examples of some cheaters who were caught red-handed.

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: george mason university

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DailyDirt: Mostly Harmless Scams…”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
DCX2 says:

Re: Re:


An informal assessment by the popular IT magazine PC Pro for its 2007 article “Wikipedia Uncovered”[38] tested Wikipedia by introducing 10 errors that “varied between bleeding obvious and deftly subtle” into articles (the researchers later corrected the articles they had edited). Labeling the results “impressive” it noted that all but one was noted and fixed within the hour, and that “the Wikipedians’ tools and know-how were just too much for our team.” A second series of another 10 tests, using “far more subtle errors” and additional techniques to conceal their nature, met similar results: “despite our stealth attempts the vast majority… were discovered remarkably quickly… the ridiculously minor Jesse James error was corrected within a minute and a very slight change to Queen Anne’s entry was put right within two minutes.” Two of the latter series were not detected. The article concluded that “Wikipedia corrects the vast majority of errors within minutes, but if they’re not spotted within the first day the chances… dwindle as you’re then relying on someone to spot the errors while reading the article rather than reviewing the edits.”

dennis deems (profile) says:

Computers are not better than humans at playing chess. They are better than humans at storing and cross-indexing encyclopedic knowledge of chess openings. They are better than humans at building and traversing a tree of potential moves. They have to examine every branch of that tree in order to determine the optimal move, because until they resolve the min/max they are unable to distinguish between a brilliancy and a crass beginner’s blunder. (Possibly some refined pruning of the tree has evolved to make this examination more efficient.)

Computers do not in fact play chess. Computers have no knowledge or understanding of chess. Computers understand hash trees and indexes. Humans have chess knowledge and understanding, and they use it to program chess computers.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...