Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spammers Attack Apple's Ping Social Network

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the strict-inevitabilities dept.

Spam 85

An anonymous reader writes "Scammers and spammers have deluged the new Ping musical social network, created by Apple and built into the new version of iTunes. Sophos researchers have found that Ping is being overrun by scams and spam messages. 'Apple seems to have anticipated a certain degree of malfeasance, as profile pictures that you upload will not appear until approved by Apple. They are likely filtering for other offensive content as well, so they probably have means in place they could use to stop the spam.' It's ironic that the most common scams on Ping right now revolve around Apple's own iPhone." The Sophos blog post adds that Apple is doing their best to clamp down on the spam, manually deleting many of the offending messages for now. Reader Tootech adds that Facebook integration was quickly disabled, possibly because of blocked API access.

cancel ×

85 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

maybe spamming is a ...... (2, Interesting)

3seas (184403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474546)

...disease that has not yet been recognized much less treated.

Re:maybe spamming is a ...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33474600)

Best cured with the cold, hard steel of a bullet.

Re:maybe spamming is a ...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33474660)

Better the cold, soft lead of a bullet.

Re:maybe spamming is a ...... (2, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474880)

Better the cold, soft lead of a bullet.

How can this be? Are you going to be inserting the bullet into the spammer manually?

I'll see your single cold bullet and raise you with a spray of hot lead.

But since I don't own a gun, I'll have to go to the store and buy a whole mess of fishing sinkers, and melt them on the stove.

My way, it's only the hope of dying that keeps them alive.

Re:maybe spamming is a ...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33477422)

No gun? Pfft, exercise your Geek cred a bit, build a rail gun, gosh darn it!

Re:maybe spamming is a ...... (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474902)

Better the hot, ionizing radiation of a nuclear warhead. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:maybe spamming is a ...... (2, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475344)

AC1 Wrote: "...hard steel of a bullet."
AC2 Wrote: "...soft lead of a bullet."

With FMJ you can both be right, but wouldn't you prefer the more satisfying hands on approach of an aluminum baseball bat? It has that personal touch that says: "I care."

Re:maybe spamming is a ...... (2, Informative)

cawpin (875453) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475724)

No. A FMJ bullet has a jacket made of COPPER, not steel. No bullet uses a steel jacket as that would wear out a barrel very quickly. Some AP (for Armor Piercing) uses a steel penetrator core, a very small steel shank inside the bullet.

Also, spamming is like a shotgun, spreading small pellets EVERYWHERE hoping to hit something.

Re:maybe spamming is a ...... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33479770)

"Also, spamming is like a shotgun, spreading small pellets EVERYWHERE hoping to hit something."

Spamming is like a rat, dropping small pellets EVERYWHERE in hopes someone steps on it.

Re:maybe spamming is a ...... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#33483784)

wouldn't you prefer the more satisfying hands on approach of an aluminium baseball bat? It has that personal touch that says: "I care."

Not to mention that aluminium is 100% recyclable!

Spamming or no spamming... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33474798)

Spamming or no spamming, I welcome the new Apple social network. Hope it sucks all the apple douche fanbois into it and the rest of us can enjoy the rest of the web.

Irony.. (3, Insightful)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474572)

Do you know it, mofo? No. You do not. It is not ironic that apple hardware (iphones) is being used to entice people into a scam on apple software. Especially when the software is what you use to keep your iphone up to date.

Perhaps if they were scamming you into buying music for a zune, we could talk irony.

Re:Irony.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33474670)

We need to invent a new word for the people who keep abusing ironic. Otherwise irony is going to have a different meaning in 10 more years. Teaching them what irony actually means is hopeless. Ditto for literally... except that 'literally' is already a lost cause, and irony isn't (yet).

Re:Irony.. (2, Funny)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474682)

I agree, it is quite ironic that both are literally a lost cause! Right?

Re:Irony.. (2, Insightful)

imamac (1083405) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474864)

Oblig xkcd [xkcd.com] .

Re:Irony.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33478808)

The word for false irony is "alanic", named after Alanis Morissette. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=alanic [urbandictionary.com]

Re:Irony.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33477252)

Do you know it, mofo? No. You do not. It is not ironic that apple hardware (iphones) is being used to entice people into a scam on apple software. Especially when the software is what you use to keep your iphone up to date.

Perhaps if they were scamming you into buying music for a zune, we could talk irony.

That's not irony either, Alanis.

Re:Irony.. (1)

Moridin42 (219670) | more than 4 years ago | (#33477988)

Apparently you learned what irony isn't from a song, and that is all you know about the word. Let me help you out with that.

Irony:

5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

If you can't see the irony in being scammed into buying music from a service offered inside of the iTunes Music Store client, you may be beyond help.

Ping? (4, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474598)

Is that one of those sites that try to profit from the misspellings? [bing.com]

Does spamming still generate real profits? (1)

rednip (186217) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474610)

I doubt if there is anyone left who thinks that offers of v1gra and riches from Nigerian princes are real opportunities. Can they really still be profitable? I'm sure that botnets and programs are still popular, but do they really generate real profits from unwitting users, or are the only people feeding such enterprises are those who attempt to profit from it. I'm guessing that many if not most of the victims actually know that someone is getting ripped off, but think that it's themselves who will come out ahead.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (3, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474642)

The cost of sending mass emails is still so low that even if they get one sucker a week out of millions of messages sent, it is still profitable, and honestly, they probably get more than that.

Its easy for us to sit back and laugh at these situations, but there are still plenty of people out that who are unaware of what happens out on the wider Internet.

Its not going to last forever, but it will probably last longer than we would expect.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (1)

rednip (186217) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475258)

but there are still plenty of people out that who are unaware of what happens out on the wider Internet.

Do you honestly think that there is anyone who has been on the internet longer than a day who's unfamiliar with spam? Sure if there was just one or a hundred pushing such scams, maybe the market could still be fruitful, but there are thousands or more

My postulate is not that there isn't any money in spam, just that the only people making any real money are those who sell services to people willing to 'invest' in such 'businesses'.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (2, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475392)

In this way, I think that spam filtering has hurt the Internet. People will rely on it over-much -- meaning that something gets past the spam filters, there is possibly a significant subset of the Internet-using population who will assume it's legit. (In this case, significant only needs to be a fraction of a percent for this to be very profitable.)

That being said, one possibility I've wondered about is that while people are paying spammers to do their thing (thus ensuring the spammers a profit), it may not really have a noticeable effect on the product sales. I could see a rather limitless market of people who tried such services once, realized it was a waste and never tried again.

I'd love to hear from someone who actual employed such "services" to find out what (if any) difference they made; if they recouped their costs; and if they tracked how many sales came from spam vs other channels.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (2, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 4 years ago | (#33476556)

Spam filters may have hurt the Internet for the reason you state... But the alternative is wading through an inbox (or webforum, blog, etc) that is 99.999% spam.

Of the servers I've dealt with, something. Like 98% of the raw smtp traffic was spam. Without spam filters, the Internet would be unusable.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33479734)

I'm thinking without effective spam filters, a more reliable method of email security and sender identification would have been standardized years ago.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33477562)

Do you honestly think that there is anyone who has been on the internet longer than a day who's unfamiliar with spam?

Yes. Examples of people who have no clue here. [youtube.com]

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33476006)

and honestly, they probably get more than that

No kidding.

look at the target audience: they've already proven themselves as a whole to be stupid enough to overpay for the hardware -- they'll buy anything.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#33484712)

Its not going to last forever, but it will probably last longer than we would expect.

You could say the same things about real life, but we've seen how that turns out. The Nigerian 419 scams are not new, not by a long shot. Con men have been using that one for almost 200 years, the scam is better known as "The Spanish Prisoner" [wikipedia.org] where the con pretends to be in correspondence with a wealthy individual imprisoned in Spain and then promises to return a large sum of money in exchange for fronting up a smaller sum, sound familiar?

These types of scams have been going on for hundreds of years, spam is just the new digital variant. Theoretically everyone should know yet there seems to be no shortage of new naive people to fall for them.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (1)

kantos (1314519) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474672)

you are making the assumption that that is the sole goal of the spammers... I don't think that is a safe assumption. Nor do I think that it is safe to assume that people won't get suckered by it anyway.

Yes (2, Informative)

slyguy135 (844866) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474674)

Re:Yes (1)

rednip (186217) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475370)

Late every night on TV you find dozens of commercials for 'get rich quick businesses', all of them give testimonials about how quick and easy it was to make money. Do you believe them as well? One should note that they rarely claim to be successful from their efforts directly, just the people who do business with them who make that claim. It's legal cover if they don't claim that they make money themselves. Those other people may lie, but good luck finding them, and they didn't sell you anything (that you can prove in court).

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (5, Funny)

Quarters (18322) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474676)

I doubt if there is anyone left who thinks that offers of v1gra and riches from Nigerian princes are real opportunities.

Do you just have a feeling that people stopped being stupid or can you cite a specific date and time you saw the majority of humanity show some shred of intellect over greed?

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (2, Insightful)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474734)

Why do you say these offers are unreal? I got a this pill by mail and now my erection is never ending (both time-wise and length-wise), which goes well with all the boatloads of money I got from this nice guy in distress who mailed me the other day. If you want more details, contact me at ******** (In order to view the contact information, you are requested to send 100$ to the following bank acco#%$# - *** Transmission Blocked ***.

Most Unfortunate (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475980)

now my erection is never ending (both time-wise and length-wise)

  I like being able to fit inside cars and houses thanks.

Perhaps you can have a new career as the words first space elevator support.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474812)

If they didn't turn a profit, they wouldn't be out there.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (2, Interesting)

martyb (196687) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475122)

If they didn't turn a profit, they wouldn't be out there.

True, but I would argue that it's worse than that; it's a matter of PERCEPTION:

If they didn't THINK they COULD turn a profit, they wouldn't be out there. Right or wrong, the perceived reward to the perceived risk is such that many continue to attempt it. As you say, some likely do turn a profit. Of those that do not, and close up shop, there are still others who think THEY CAN, and set up shop to start spamming. And so the spamming continues.

Until such time as those who might spam conclude the potential risk exceeds the potential reward, we will continue to have spammers among us. Technological means can go a long way, yes, but given past experience, there always seems to be yet another new way to bypass these controls. Heck, I was on the internet when the first spam message was posted on usenet and saw the huge reaction. Nothing has yet been able to stop it.

Yikes! It's worse than I thought! I just looked up spam on wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and discovered this:

In the late 19th Century Western Union allowed telegraphic messages on its network to be sent to multiple destinations. The first recorded instance of a mass unsolicited commercial telegram is from May 1864. Up until the Great Depression wealthy North American residents would be deluged with nebulous investment offers.

Alas, human nature being what it is even though the technology may change, I fear that spam will be with us for a long time to come.

Re:May 1864 (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475624)

Join the Confederates Stop Stick it to the Norhern Bastards Stop Free Girls Too

(The historical accuracy of this simulation was compromised by the Lameness Caps filter. To learn more about the Lameness Caps filter near you, write a post that requires large numbers of capital letters. Some restrictions apply. See post error messages for details.)

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (0, Redundant)

Americium (1343605) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475164)

Of course they would still be out there, it would just become more humorous when no money is involved. Just think of your spambox full of Rick Roll videos.

A matter of margins (2, Interesting)

mangu (126918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475228)

If they didn't turn a profit, they wouldn't be out there.

True. The problem with digital commerce is that advertising cost is *extremely* low, even more so if they use spambots.

When your cost is zero, any sale turns a profit.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (2, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#33476712)

If they didn't turn a profit, they wouldn't be out there.

Correction: They want to turn a profit and SPAM is a cheap way to attempt that.

The difference is that it doesn't matter if anybody buys it or not, the SPAM's already gone out.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (2, Interesting)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 4 years ago | (#33477314)

What else are you going to do with the massive botnet between big decrypt or password cracking jobs?

It could well be just what they do on idle. If it gets 1 hit in a million, it would still be more profitable than letting your 100 thousand hacked machines sit there doing nothing for hours at a time.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (2, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474846)

I doubt if there is anyone left who thinks that offers of v1gra .... are real opportunities

What makes you think they aren't? You realize that a lot of these online pharma stores do in fact sell pharmaceuticals, right? Of course if you buy them you might get dosages too strong, too weak, or sold alongside other things that can kill you, but they do sell Viagra! One reason the "Canadian Pharmacy" is everywhere is because they have built up brand recognition amongst casual/recreational users of ED drugs, so they get repeat custom.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (2, Insightful)

kevingolding2001 (590321) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474972)

Unfortunately yes. There are still morons waiting to be fleeced [couriermail.com.au]

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (1)

pyrosine (1787666) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475132)

*shakes head* That she still believes she is not gullible is ridiculous.. On a side note, how is it that the author managed to write about scamming and then went on to something about reporting hackers? Made me do a double take

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33475396)

Spam isn't much about profit anymore, more so, its a means to "recruit" new members into a botnet.

Re:Does spamming still generate real profits? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#33476642)

Can they really still be profitable?

Spammers are paid before any profit is gained or lost. You don't actually need people buying stuff for spam services to be purchased, you just need people trying to sell or scam shit.

Flood ping or ping of death (1, Interesting)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474646)

What is it with Apple and the network stack? First IOS, now Ping. What's next, GPS for the iPhone called Traceroute?

Re:Flood ping or ping of death (2, Funny)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474924)

What is it with Apple and the network stack? First IOS, now Ping. What's next, GPS for the iPhone called Traceroute?

Nah, it's gonna be their "Geo-Locate Caller" service: TRON.

Re: TRON (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475642)

"What's the Matter, Steve? You Look Nervous. End Of Line."

What jerks (4, Insightful)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474788)

"Steve Jobs complained to me about what he called "onerous terms" that Facebook had demanded for the friends connection "

I mean, here Apple is, just minding it's own business trying to build an application to replace facebook, and facebook won't give them all their user data for nothing? What jerks. How dare they put restrictions on it like that? Who do they think they are, trying to stay in business after Apple told them it's not their turn anymore?

I don't see any compelling reason that facebook would ever give their friends lists to Apple. Is there even a theoretical benefit for facebook in doing so?

Re:What jerks (5, Insightful)

rjch (544288) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474844)

"Steve Jobs complained to me about what he called "onerous terms" that Facebook had demanded for the friends connection "

Steve Jobs is hardly in a position to be able to complain about "onerous terms" being placed on people. How many pages is the EULA for that abortion iTunes up to? 103? It's over a hundred...

Re:What jerks (2, Informative)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474946)

Steve Jobs is hardly in a position to be able to complain about "onerous terms" being placed on people. How many pages is the EULA for that abortion iTunes up to? 103? It's over a hundred...

The PDF [apple.com] is 79 pages, some of them empty - and that's for the EULA in 18 languages. IOW, nope.

Re:What jerks (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474998)

What gets me is how the terms seem to change every time there's an update anymore.

You wanna get this weeks update for AirVideo? Please sign your soul away now...

Re:What jerks (1)

Stupendoussteve (891822) | more than 4 years ago | (#33476808)

Most updates bring new functionality, new EULA is used to cover the terms of new functionality. I do not see a problem here.

Re:What jerks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33477896)

I do see a problem: you have to agree on the term of the EULA on your iPad to be able to upgrade an app you have bought. You cannot buy new applications if you don't agree to the new EULA.

There is something extremely fishy there: if you don't agree to the new EULA on a device that don't have iTunes 10 you cannot use the full previous functionality anymore. I highly doubt the legality of this...

Re:What jerks (3, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 4 years ago | (#33476232)

Try downloading a free app on your iphone. They force an itms EULA on you there too. And yes its over 100 "pages" there.
100+ pages of eula to obtain a free app is stupid.

Re:What jerks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33476896)

Try downloading a free app on your iphone. They force an itms EULA on you there too. And yes its over 100 "pages" there.
100+ pages of eula to obtain a free app is stupid.

The A. ITUNES STORE, APP STORE, AND IBOOKSTORE TERMS OF SALE + B. ITUNES STORE TERMS AND CONDITIONS + C. APP STORE AND IBOOKSTORE TERMS AND CONDITIONS + D. PRIVACY POLICY [apple.com]
  combined don't amount to a hundred pages/screens.

Lars T.

Re:What jerks (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 4 years ago | (#33482332)

It does when it its presented to you *on your iphone*, which it is.

Re:What jerks (1)

tiedyejeremy (559815) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474856)

ED ZACHARY

Re:What jerks (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474876)

I don't see any compelling reason that facebook would ever give their friends lists to Apple. Is there even a theoretical benefit for facebook in doing so?

They will see the reason once the check arrives to purchase them.

Re:What jerks (1)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 4 years ago | (#33479666)

A cash payment from a new competitor for the data they need to be successful? This is like Google selling their search algorithms (not just the search results) to Microsoft. The price would need to be insanely high, or involve facebook getting or controlling Apple's data, too (which seems to me to likely be the onerous terms mentioned.)

Re:What jerks (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#33481200)

I meant to purchase FaceBook itsself, not purchase access to the data.

Re:What jerks (2, Interesting)

getNewNickName (980625) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475280)

Do we even know what type of integration was proposed? I can see a lot of benefit for Facebook to receive additional traffic from iTunes users. I imagine that they wanted a cut from iTunes sales that Apple was not willing to give.

Re:What jerks (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475726)

Im willing to bet there are very few iDevice owners who are not on Facebook already. I see no real benefit to Facebook, they would just be contributing to their own demise.

Warning Joke:

I dont know who to root for.. facebook or apple.. I dislike both of them. I kinda hope they collide and their combined mass causes them to implode. /endjoke

Re:What jerks (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33476328)

He may be a jerk but he might be right this time: I work for a large company that has a software product that would _really_ benefit from interoperability with Facebook. The feature has been implemented months ago but the lawyers won't let us put it out: the terms Facebook offers are not something we can live with -- without going to details I can tell you it's not a question of money, it's a question of control.

There are two sides on every coin of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if the situation was similar: the bosses have shaken hands on it already but when the actual contract comes from FB, it contains some very questionable details...

Re:What jerks (1)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 4 years ago | (#33479642)

And what benefit does your product have for facebook? It's their data you want, they can put whatever price or terms they want. Unless your product adds significant value to facebook, why would they give it to you?

When faced with a seller that doesn't need to sell to you, the price and terms can be dictated by them. If you can't meet them, it's no big deal to the seller. They don't need you to be successful.

Facebook doesn't even need Apple for anything. 160 million iTunes users sounds great, until you realize that facebook probably already has nearly all of those users who would use a social network. They don't absolutely need anything that Apple has to offer, but Apple needs facebook's friend networks to get Ping off the ground. If they don't like the terms, maybe they should have signed a deal with facebook before they invested in and lauched Ping.

"No, thanks. Why don't you try MySpace?" would've been an appropriate response to Apple. Going public with your plan to replace facebook and then asking them for their user data - Who thought that was a good idea? Is anyone the least bit surprised that there were conditions that Apple found unacceptable?

Re:What jerks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33478620)

It's a MUSIC social Network. Show me where Steve Jobs said he is going to "replace" Facebook. His own apps like iPhoto have facebook intergration.

previous/still nazi regime attacking US again (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33474800)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:en0P4RoJjCYJ:www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm+wolfowitz+cheney&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

& why not? nothing's changed about the plan. a precisely constructed, perfectly scheduled, smoke&mirrors covered shitslide into hell (on earth). this is what you wanted?

meanwhile (much much too long already); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

never a better time to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Dear Apple: (4, Insightful)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474808)

Please remove the current iTunes codebase from the life-support you insist on keeping it on. Let the craplication die already, its brain is already dead.

Rewrite it, buy another developer, or open the damn platform so someone else can do it.

Ah... (2, Funny)

game kid (805301) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474868)

I see Apple has the machine that goes "spam egg, spam, spam, bacon and spam"!

Ironic? (4, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#33474900)

It's ironic that the most common scams on Ping right now revolve around Apple's own iPhone.

The author might want to look up the definition of irony, because I'm pretty sure this is the opposite.

Re:Ironic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33475084)

Exactly. This is targeted spam, and that's hardly surprising.

Re:Ironic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33476288)

It's 'US Irony'.

Re:Ironic? (1)

Stupendoussteve (891822) | more than 4 years ago | (#33476824)

Ironically, you're fighting a losing battle. The masses have just drifted too far.

What a load of beeswax mate. (-1, Offtopic)

martyngold (1893758) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475080)

I've have been doing countless stuff for escorts sites including London Escorts [bondandmayfair.com] , every time I do something on facebook I get a message in my inbox regarding spam etc. I'mean why on earth give us an option to create a fan page in the first place then? I hope someone can come up with a solution like have a moderator for every category as DMOZ does. Maybe combine a Directory with Facebook would be a great idea?

Re:What a load of beeswax mate. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33475118)

Maybe you should start your own version of Facebook, just for hookers and johns. Would save the cops a lot of trouble...

Re:What a load of beeswax mate. (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475292)

Well, now that Craigslist is out of the business, there will be a need.

Re:What a load of beeswax mate. (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475360)

Google it, the market is already saturated.

Just a comment (1)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 4 years ago | (#33475614)

LOL Apple LOL Facebook 2 of the shitiest companies GG!

Apple has problems with an online service? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33475670)

Apple is having a problem with a new online service? This is inconceivable! Considering the outstanding quality and value that is MobileMe and the unprecedented popularity of iWork.com, I am shocked, shocked, that Apple would have difficulty managing a new online service.

Fp 7vucker (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33476180)

Sa73s and so on, [goat.cx]

There is a simple solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33477526)

An incredibly simple solution to the scammer/ spammer plague afflicting netizens worldwide. And this solution can be YOURS, for only $19.xxsakhg;fd....CARRIER LOST ......I, for one, look forward, with great anticipation, to the day the solar flares completely disrupt telecommunications traffic on a global scale.......

Bhanu Tiwari (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33489478)

As soon as I viewed this web write-up my thought was that Slashdot Apple Story's frequenters really have to comment on this! http://hubpages.com/hub/rent-a-laptop-rentals . I can't comprehend renting a portable computer at all! The fees for renting a netbook even for only a week or two is going to cost you as much as basically buying the notebook!

Bhanu Tiwari

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?