I definitely remember being at work on the day the Playstation 2 came out and seeing lots of eBay ads for the box.
They are 'scams' but there is really a lot to be said for the fact that the people buying are not the least bit attentive to what they're buying.
I think it's wrong, and yes, the seller should not get away with it, but it's still an important commentary on actually READING and not just assuming.
The ads I saw were not taking any chances, they had lots of SHOUTING and repeatedly explained you were buying an empty box. Maybe that stopped working and they've had to get sneakier and farther away from the truth, dunno.
I NEVER support the police version of any story. Ever. I rarely take their side even when it's cut and dried, and don't make excuses for them. If you doubt me go read my Facebook where my friends are tired of my constant posting of stories like this.
However I think there is one misconception here - I think the quote about 'fearing for his safety' meant the cop feared for the KID'S safety, not his (cop's) safety.
As in, "He's running through a parking lot handcuffed, he's gonna get hurt, so let's Taze him and drop him on his face to the macadam to 'protect' him."
IE, it' equally stupid logic, but I do think that was the meaning...and Tim might've misinterpreted that. (Not hard to do as cops always 'fear for their safety' and shoot people...)
...that I decided not to pay these scumbags when they tried to shake me down. Not JUST because I saved $4g, and not JUST because I didn't enrich these guys...but because I'd have such a hard time living with myself reading all this stuff knowing I'd made the wrong move and stupidly knuckled under to extortion.
So this may sound funny, but even though I live pretty dangerously online and have done so back to the 80's and 300 baud modems, I have in that 30 years gotten suckered by anything other than minor annoying malware once - and I was specifically targeted for that - a trojan that wiped the boot sector of my 30MB hard drive in 1988...
So anyway, I never get this stuff, only the occasional browser hijack and so on.
I was sad to see that all 3 of those links above are dead already...
If I purposely wanted to infect myself (via my virtual PC test bed, of course) where can I go to basically be assured of getting this?
I just want to see if I'm smart enough to get around it. :)
OK, far be it from me to ever defend Lieberman on anything, and I'm not - his desire to "stop terrorism" by "hiding terrorist videos" is, indeed, silly and misguided.
BUT....where's the connection in this exact case?
All that's said here is that they were taken down as in accordance with YouTube's policy of shocking or offensive videos.
Again - we can (and should) argue with YouTube's policy here, as we can (and should) argue with Lieberman's, but they are completely DIFFERENT THINGS, enacted (however wrongly) for different reasons.
This is an attempt to create a connection between YouTube's censoring these videos based on their perception of objectionable content, vs. YouTube's censoring videos in compliance with Lieberman's demands. As the linked-to 2008 entry states, Lieberman specifically demanded videos that did NOT display violence or hate speech removed.
It's a pretty big difference, and linking this particular takedown to Lieberman makes no sense, and is actually giving Google an "out" to blame someone else for their own policy decisions.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by JD Fenstermacher.
Wait...you live in a world where you can understand how a Sharpie marker could be smuggled into an Applebee's bathroom but not some cocaine?
I recall this at least as far back as PS2...
I definitely remember being at work on the day the Playstation 2 came out and seeing lots of eBay ads for the box.
They are 'scams' but there is really a lot to be said for the fact that the people buying are not the least bit attentive to what they're buying.
I think it's wrong, and yes, the seller should not get away with it, but it's still an important commentary on actually READING and not just assuming.
The ads I saw were not taking any chances, they had lots of SHOUTING and repeatedly explained you were buying an empty box. Maybe that stopped working and they've had to get sneakier and farther away from the truth, dunno.
JD
Don't get me wrong...
I NEVER support the police version of any story. Ever. I rarely take their side even when it's cut and dried, and don't make excuses for them. If you doubt me go read my Facebook where my friends are tired of my constant posting of stories like this.
However I think there is one misconception here - I think the quote about 'fearing for his safety' meant the cop feared for the KID'S safety, not his (cop's) safety.
As in, "He's running through a parking lot handcuffed, he's gonna get hurt, so let's Taze him and drop him on his face to the macadam to 'protect' him."
IE, it' equally stupid logic, but I do think that was the meaning...and Tim might've misinterpreted that. (Not hard to do as cops always 'fear for their safety' and shoot people...)
I am so glad....
...that I decided not to pay these scumbags when they tried to shake me down. Not JUST because I saved $4g, and not JUST because I didn't enrich these guys...but because I'd have such a hard time living with myself reading all this stuff knowing I'd made the wrong move and stupidly knuckled under to extortion.
So yeah, I'm glad I did not.
I want it...
So this may sound funny, but even though I live pretty dangerously online and have done so back to the 80's and 300 baud modems, I have in that 30 years gotten suckered by anything other than minor annoying malware once - and I was specifically targeted for that - a trojan that wiped the boot sector of my 30MB hard drive in 1988...
So anyway, I never get this stuff, only the occasional browser hijack and so on.
I was sad to see that all 3 of those links above are dead already...
If I purposely wanted to infect myself (via my virtual PC test bed, of course) where can I go to basically be assured of getting this?
I just want to see if I'm smart enough to get around it. :)
+1 for the Zork reference.
Since I first laid it down via edlin in 1991, ? You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike? has been the banner on my Web page.
Almost nobody gets it.
Wait...what's the connection?
OK, far be it from me to ever defend Lieberman on anything, and I'm not - his desire to "stop terrorism" by "hiding terrorist videos" is, indeed, silly and misguided.
BUT....where's the connection in this exact case?
All that's said here is that they were taken down as in accordance with YouTube's policy of shocking or offensive videos.
Again - we can (and should) argue with YouTube's policy here, as we can (and should) argue with Lieberman's, but they are completely DIFFERENT THINGS, enacted (however wrongly) for different reasons.
This is an attempt to create a connection between YouTube's censoring these videos based on their perception of objectionable content, vs. YouTube's censoring videos in compliance with Lieberman's demands. As the linked-to 2008 entry states, Lieberman specifically demanded videos that did NOT display violence or hate speech removed.
It's a pretty big difference, and linking this particular takedown to Lieberman makes no sense, and is actually giving Google an "out" to blame someone else for their own policy decisions.