Friend or foe here is a site dedicated to all things Wal-Mart.
Via Kevin Drum. AS usual be sure to read the comment thread for some lively discussion.
Update: If I had been properly keeping up on my reading I would have seen this at Jaquandor’s place two days ago. He was far ahead of Kevin.
I am often annoyed by the stretched attemps of journalists and their editors (and your current host) to tempt readers with stupid puns, alliterations and the like. For some reason, yet to be explored, this does not bother me so much when bloggers are the perps.
I am doubly annoyed when they lie at the same time. Today C/net published an article with this headline:
‘Phishing’ scams luring more users
I have a few samples of Phishing scam emails locked away in a folder and, yes, the headline lured me to the article to see if there was new info. Especially the bit about the apparent growing success of these scams.
But it turns out they have no clue. Here is the meat:
…said Monday that in September 2003 the company encountered just 279 phishing e-mails. In January 2004, this figure reached 337,050 and then dropped back to 215,643 by March. The company said it is impossible to estimate exactly how many people have been fooled by the phishers.
You read it right. The rate is down and there is nothing to substantiate the headline’s allegation that these scams “‘are luring more users.” Argggghhhh….
All this aside you might want to make antiphishing.org a regular stop for the latest scam updates.
Here’s the deal:
Dress properly, act dignified, be polite, smile. And spend a little extra for good service� it will pay you back in droves.
Yep, with the right bribe you will find yourself eating at a select table in that exclusive restaurant that has a 2 hour wait if you can get in at all.
Via Marginal Revolution.
Max asks:
Can anyone explain by what legal authority a U.S. Marshall can order a journalist to erase a tape recording of statements made in a public place? If only someone with legal expertise had been on the scene.
Eugene Volokh considered the same event and says:
If this report is accurate, then I don’t see any legal justification for the marshal’s demand, or the marshal’s seizing the tape recorder (which therefore sounds like a Fourth Amendment violation to me). To my knowledge, there’s no law — it would presumably have to be a Mississippi law — prohibiting tape recording of public events, even ones on private property.
This practice seems to be common in other contexts. For instance, theater and concerts come immediately to mind. How is Scalia’s practice different from, for example, Bob Dylan’s?
Note, I in no way support Scalia’s practice. He is a civil servant and as such should be 100% transparent in all work and public activities.
On the other hand, I think musicians are being foolish when they prohibit recording. Of course, in many cases (not Dylan) it would take only a few concert recordings to circulate to expose the complete lack of creativity they bring to the stage.
First, via Hit & Run I learn that the american taliban bushies are not only running a ridiculous deficit but that they are also wasting millions of the dollars that they don’t have chasing down willing folks selling product to willing buyers. Come on feds, if there are assaults, rapes, fraud, extortion, etc., go after’m otherwise leave the people you are supposed to serve alone.
And, then I learn via Boing Boing that the guy who may or may not be the world’s richest man makes a portion of his billions selling furniture to the folks willingly buying product from the folks the feds are harrassing.
Ahhhh, the webs of commerce.