Twitter, Facebook attack targeted one user

August 6, 2009 4:32 PM PDT

by Elinor Mills

A Georgian blogger with accounts on Twitter, Facebook, LiveJournal, and Google's Blogger and YouTube was targeted in a denial-of-service attack that led to the sitewide outage at Twitter and problems at the other sites on Thursday, according to a Facebook executive.

The blogger, who uses the account name "Cyxymu," (the name of a town in the Republic of Georgia) had accounts on all of the different sites that were attacked at the same time, Max Kelly, chief security officer at Facebook, told CNET News.

"It was a simultaneous attack across a number of properties targeting him to keep his voice from being heard," Kelly said. "We're actively investigating the source of the attacks, and we hope to be able to find out the individuals involved in the back end and to take action against them, if we can."

Cyxymu LiveJournal account on cached version of Google.

(Credit: LiveJournal)

Kelly declined to speculate on who was behind the attack, but he said: "You have to ask who would benefit the most from doing this and think about what those people are doing and the disregard for the rest of the users and the Internet."

Twitter was down for several hours beginning early Thursday morning, and it suffered periodic slowness and time-outs throughout the day.

Cyxymu's LiveJournal page wasn't accessible, but a cached version showed that it was updated on Thursday with a message about the denial-of-service, or DoS, attacks on his accounts on the United States-based sites. "Now it's obvious it's a special attack against me and Georgians," said the message, in Russian.

The site also apologized for a spam e-mail attack in which the sender was spoofed and made to look like the e-mails were sent by him. Screenshots are shown. It's unclear whether or how the spam attack is related to the DoS attacks.

In the distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack on the sites, computers that have been compromised by viruses or other malware are instructed by the attacker's computer to visit the specific Web sites all at the same time and repeatedly. The barrage of connection requests overwhelms the target sites, making it so that legitimate Web traffic can't get through.

Such coordinated attacks require the efforts of tens of thousands or more of hijacked computers, which together form a botnet. Spammers send e-mails with malicious attachments or URLs to millions of people to create botnets. Criminals also can lease existing botnets for specific campaigns for as little as 5 cents to 10 cents per bot.

A Facebook representative dismissed a theory that the attack was triggered by a spam campaign in which e-mails had links to the sites. It's unlikely that there would be enough recipients--all clicking on the URLs at the same time--to bring a site down, he said. There was a spam campaign that directed people to Cyxymu's accounts, but it wasn't the cause of the DoS, he said.

"The people who are coordinating this attack, the criminals, are definitely determined and using a lot of resources," Kelly said. "If they're asking our infrastructure to generate hundreds of pages a second, that's a lot of pages our users can't see."

Facebook and Google were able to minimize any impact to their sites, including Blogger, YouTube, and Google Sites, a free Web site service. Facebook even managed to keep the Cyxymu account accessible to Web surfers from that region, Kelly said, though it was inaccessible to people in other geographic areas, including San Francisco.

This was the first coordinated attack on the sites, and all the companies involved were working closely on the investigation, he said. "My team and the teams that are working together at all these companies are doing a really good job very quickly, and I'm proud and happy," he said.

Twitter and LiveJournal did not immediately return e-mails and calls seeking comment.

A Google representative offered this statement: "We are aware that a handful of non-Google sites were impacted by a DoS attack this morning and are in contact with some affected companies to help investigate this attack. Google systems prevented substantive impact to our services."

Political conflicts between Russia and its former republic spilled online last year with DoS attacks and Web site defacements going in both directions.

For more information, listen to Larry Magid's podcast interview with Elinor Mills.

Updated at 7:39 p.m. PDT, with Facebook saying a spam campaign did not cause the DoS, and at 6:35 p.m., with information from Cyxymu's site, more about the spam attack, how DDoS attacks work, and background on the Russia-Georgia conflict.

Elinor Mills covers Internet security and privacy. She joined CNET News in 2005 after working as a foreign correspondent for Reuters in Portugal and writing for The Industry Standard, the IDG News Service, and the Associated Press. E-mail Elinor.

Mars Life Looks Increasingly Unlikely

Mars Life Looks Increasingly Unlikely

Shared via AddThis

Worm infiltrates Twitter

A worm apparently infected Twitter on Saturday.

The worm may originate with the StalkDaily.com site, and Twitter warned people against visiting the site or linking to it.

"If you have been locked out of your acct due to the StalkDaily issue, pls do a p/w reset; we may have reset your p/w for safety," Twitter informed its users on Saturday afternoon.

Details about the worm itself were scarce, but the micro-blogging site was awash in the news by Saturday night. "StalkDaily Worm Runs," "#stalksdaily," and "Twitter hit by" were the No. 2, 3 and 5 top topics at that time.

According to a TechCrunch report, visiting the profile page of an infected user can lead to one's own profile getting infected. The worm also apparently sends spam tweets from the infected person's account that direct others to the StalkDaily site.

The worm apparently hit in the morning, according to Twitter, and then had a resurgence in the afternoon.

StalkDaily's site states that it has nothing to do with the attacks, according to TechCrunch. But that statement apparently is being taken with a grain of salt.

What is guarana?

Other Names: Paullinia cupana, Brazilian cocoa

Guarana (pronounced gwa-ra-NAH) is a creeping shrub native to Venezuela and northern Brazil in the Amazon rain forest. The fruit are small, bright-red, and contains black seeds.

Guarana seeds are rich in caffeine and contain up to 4-8% caffeine, more than coffee beans, which contain approximately 1–2.5% caffeine. The seeds are also rich in tannins and xanthine alkaloids theophylline and theobromine.

Why do people use guarana?
Guaraná is reputed to be a stimulant and increase mental alertness, fight fatigue, and increase stamina and physical endurance.

Guarana drinks and sodas are very popular in Brazil (where guarana is considered to be a health tonic), almost as popular as cola-based sodas. Sweet, carbonated guarana drinks include the popular brands Guaraná Antarctica, Guaraná Brahma, and Kuat (from Coca-Cola Company).

In North America, guarana has recently become a popular ingredient in energy drinks and teas.

Guarana is one of the richest sources of caffeine, containing up to three times the amount of caffeine as coffee. Unlike coffee, the amount of caffeine doesn't have to be listed on guarana drinks.

In addition to its stimulant properties, guarana is also a popular ingredient in herbal weight loss pills. Some evidence indicates that guarana may suppress appetite and increase fat-burning.

What research has been done on guarana?

An animal study examined the effect of 14 days of guarana supplementation on fat metabolism in sedentary and trained rats and found that the guarana's fat-burning effect is due to the caffeine content. Decaffeinated guarana extracts had no effect on lipid metabolism.

A Journal of Psychopharmacology study found that guarana improved memory, mood and alertness at low (37.5 mg, 75 mg) vs. higher (150 mg, 300 mg) doses. However, another study examined the long-term use of guarana, caffeine, or placebo on the cognition of 45 older individuals. There were no significant effects of guarana on cognition.

Safety
Guarana should not be used by people who are sensitive to caffeine or xanthines.

People with heart conditions, diabetes, high blood pressure, epilepsy, overactive thyroid, anxiety, insomnia, and kidney disease should only use guarana under the supervision of their doctor.

The safety of guarana in pregnant or nursing women has not been established. Since many doctors recommend limiting caffeine during pregnancy and nursing, guarana should be avoided because caffeine content differs from product to product and it isn't possible for consumers to accurately estimate how much caffeine they are consuming through guarana.

Guarana should not be taken with any products containing ephedra. Serious adverse effects have been reported with this combination. It may increase the risk of stroke, hemorrhage, myocardial infarction, and sudden death and has been associated with increases in heart rate, blood pressure, and potentially harmful changes in glucose and potassium levels.

A report published in the Journal of Herbal Pharmacotherapy described the case of a heart rhythm abnormality called premature ventricular contraction associated with two herbal supplements that both contained large doses of guarana.

Initial symptoms of guarana overdose include difficulty urinating, vomiting, and abdominal cramps and spasms. If you suspect a guarana overdose, seek medical attention immediately.

Common Forms
Guarana can be found in powder or pill form. It is an ingredient in energy drinks, sodas, and other beverages.

Drug interaction
Guarana has been found to decrease platelet aggregation and thromboxane synthesis, so it may increase the risk of bleeding when taken with aspirin, anticoagulants such as Warfarin (Coumadin®), and platelet inhibitors such as Ticlopidine (Ticlid®), Clopidogrel (Plavix®).

Guarana should not be combined with MAO-inhibitors, and may cause headaches.Sources

Baghkhani L and Jafari M. "Cardiovascular adverse reactions associated with Guarana: is there a causal effect?" Journal of Herbal Pharmacotherapy. 2.1 (2002):57-61.

Bydlowski SP et al. "A novel property of an aqueous guarana extract (Paullinia cupana): inhibition of platelet aggregation in vitro and in vivo." Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research. 21.3 (1988):535-8.

Galduroz JC and Carlini EA. "The effects of long-term administration of guarana on the cognition of normal, elderly volunteers." Sao Paulo Medical Journal. 114.1 (1996):1073-8.

Lima WP et al. "Lipid metabolism in trained rats: effect of guarana (Paullinia cupana Mart.) supplementation." Clinical Nutrition. 24.6 (2005):1019-28.

Haskell CF et al. "A double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-dose evaluation of the acute behavioural effects of guarana in humans." Journal of Psychopharmacology. 2006 Mar 13.

Nyska A et al. "Acute hemorrhagic myocardial necrosis and sudden death of rats exposed to a combination of ephedrine and caffeine." Toxicological Sciences. 83.2 (2005):388-96.

Facebook rolls out storage system to wrangle massive photo stores

Facebook rolls out storage system to wrangle massive photo stores

Posted using ShareThis

Should Obama Control the Internet?

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

story continues below
story continued from above

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.

Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.

"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records—the list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."

But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."

The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.

"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."

The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.

"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."

Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."

The Controversial Acai Berry

The Controversial Acai Berry

Posted using ShareThis

Upbeat Economic Indicators Give Americans Hope That Worst May be Over

Upbeat Economic Indicators Give Americans Hope That Worst May be Over

By Harold BrubakerPrint Article Print Article

business-web3RISMEDIA, March 28, 2009-(MCT)-A run of encouraging economic reports that have recently been released may mean the worst, panic-inducing stage of the economic downturn is over. Emphasis on the word may. “I think there are signs of economic life,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com in West Chester, PA, said. “The downturn is no longer intensifying, and the clearest evidence of this can be found in the retail sector as retail sales have turned since the beginning of the year,” Zandi said.

Upbeat economic indicators, including government reports showing gains in durable-goods orders and new-homes sales, may not mean the economy has struck bottom, however. Job losses will continue, and growth is not expected until late this year, economists said.

Gloomier economic forecasts, by the likes of Martin Feldstein, a Harvard University economics professor and a member of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, have pushed the turnaround well into next year, according to a Reuter’s interview.

Even relatively optimistic economists are quick to warn that not too much should be read into reports like these released by the Commerce Department on new-home sales and durable-goods orders.

New-home sales in February jumped 4.7% to an annual pace of 337,000 from a record low in January. February marked the first increase in sales since the summer, and the report added to a string of “better-than-expected” housing data, according to Wachovia Bank economist Adam G. York.

New orders for computers, machinery, and other durable goods climbed an unexpectedly strong 3.4% in February as well. “This was a surprisingly strong bounce in view of the severe global recession,” said Brian Bethune, chief U.S. financial economist at IHS Global Insight Inc., “but we would not read too much into it,” as he said he expected the overall downward trend to continue for several more months.

Zandi called the climb in durable-goods orders a hopeful sign and pointed to other reasons for optimism, including the rally in the stock market. “That’s important in terms of the collective psyche,” he said.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index has gained 20% since March 9 - when it closed at a level last seen more than a decade before and The Dow Jones industrial average has risen 18.4% in the same amount of time.

The tax portion of the federal-stimulus program is kicking in, as a decline in tax withholding is starting to boost take-home pay, Zandi said, which could bolster the positive trend in consumer spending seen earlier this year.

William C. Dunkelberg, an economics professor at Temple University, said pent-up demand in the economy was huge because consumers had reduced spending out of fear. “As confidence returns,” he said, “they’ll spend.”
Dunkelberg went out on a limb and said that the economy had bottomed, citing the gain in construction, the upturn in new-home sales, and the decline in inventories to record lows.

An executive at National Penn Bancshares Inc. is not ready to go that far. “I think our stance here is to prepare for the worst and be pleasantly surprised if things turn out better,” said Michael R. Reinhard, the Boyertown, Pa., bank’s chief financial officer. “We’re not ready to call this the bottom, and everything’s uphill from here.”

Copyright © 2009, The Philadelphia Inquirer
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

The Power of a Tweet

The Power of a Tweet

Posted using ShareThis

Campaign to Fight California Bill 178 is Underway!

Campaign to Fight California Bill 178 is Underway!

Posted using ShareThis

U.S. plan to buy toxic assets near
Treasury chief Geithner is poised to announce details of next step in rescuing banks: Public-private partnerships.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Obama administration will soon unveil a program to help banks clean up their books by purchasing their bad assets, two senior administration officials told CNN.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will announce the plan early next week, the officials said.

The effort represents a big change in Washington's six-month-old bank rescue, which has so far mostly entailed making capital investments in exchange for stock shares and insuring bank obligations.

Investors have been waiting expectantly for details since last month when Geithner announced the framework of a plan to address two of the biggest problems in the banking sector: the toxic assets keeping banks from lending and the shortage of capital at major institutions.

At the time, Geithner pledged to raise as much as $500 billion from public and private sources to relieve banks of toxic assets. But he didn't explain how the program would bring together buyers and sellers who have been locked in a stalemate for 18 months.

Under the plan being considered, government funds will be used to effectively seed partnerships with private firms to buy up assets backed by mortgages and other loans.

A Treasury spokesman declined to comment.

The effort will involve the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Treasury Department or Federal Reserve, the administration officials said.

The FDIC will set up investment partnerships and lend those partnerships about 85% of the money needed to buy toxic assets. Treasury will hire several investment firms to raise private funds, and also work with the Federal Reserve to expand lending.

"We do know that banks have these so-called toxic assets on their balance sheets," Christina Romer, a top White House economic adviser, said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

"They are making banks unwilling to lend, they're making private investors unwilling to come into banks," Romer said. "We need to get those off the banks' balance sheets."
Getting private sector involved

So-called public-private partnerships could accomplish two critical goals: to lure private capital into the process of rescuing troubled institutions, and to use market forces to set prices for hard-to-value assets.

In the end, the aim is to unfreeze the credit markets, which have been weighed down by consumer and investor fears about future losses at the nation's banks.

The financial crisis, considered the worst since the Great Depression, was sparked by a rapid decline of housing prices leading to high levels of mortgage defaults. Banks and other institutions that bet on those mortgages, often in the form of complex securities that packaged up slices of loans, have suffered huge losses in recent quarters.

Last fall, Congress and the Bush administration came together to pass an unprecedented $700 billion bailout plan, which has among other things pumped nearly $200 billion into hundreds of banks big and small.

President Obama and Geithner have been working for months, even before Obama took office in January, to fashion a comprehensive strategy for rescuing the banks.
0:00 /24:35Geithner opens up

Geithner's plans have been weighed down in recent days by congressional and public backlash against retention bonuses paid to employees of American International Group, a troubled insurer now majority owned by the government that has become a magnet for criticism.

-CNN senior White House correspondent Ed Henry contributed to this report. To top of page
First Published: March 21, 2009: 12:24 PM ET

The First GM Human Embryo Could Dramatically Alter the Future

Human_embryo “The advance of genetic engineering makes it quite conceivable that we will begin to design our own evolutionary progress.”

~Isaac Asimov, famous thinker and sci-fi writer

Cornell University researchers in New York revealed that they had produced what is believed to be the world’s first genetically altered human embryo—an ironic twist considering all the criticism the US has heaped on South Korea over the past several years for going “too far” with its genetic research programs. The Cornell team, led by Nikica Zaninovic, used a virus to add a green fluorescent protein gene, to a human embryo left over from an in vitro fertilization procedure. The research was presented at a meeting of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine last year, but details have emerged only after new controversy has emerged over the ethics and science of genetically modifying humans.

Zaninovic has pointed out that in order to be sure that the new gene had been inserted and the embryo had been genetically modified, scientists would ideally want to keep growing the embryo and carry out further tests. However, the Cornell team did not get permission to keep the embryo alive. The GM embryos created could theoretically have become the world’s first genetically altered man or woman, but it was destroyed after five days.

British regulators form the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), have warned that such controversial experiments cause “large ethical and public interest issues”.

Much of the debate stems from the fact that the effects of genetically altering an embryo would be generational and permanent. In other words, if we create a mutant baby and it grows up to have children of it’s own—they’ll all be mutant gene carriers too. Genes injected into embryos and reproductive cells, such as sperm, affect every cells in the body and would be passed on to future generations. Critics say current humans don’t have the right to tamper with the gene pool of future generations.

On the other hand, proponents of such technology say that this science could potentially erase diseases such as cystic fibrosis, hemophilia and even cancer. In theory, any “good” gene could be added to embryos to offset any “bad” genes they are currently carrying. That could potentially mean the difference between life and death for many children.

John Harris, the Sir David Alliance Professor of Bioethics at Manchester University, takes it a step further. He believes that as parents, citizens, and scientists, we are morally obliged to do whatever we can genetically to make life better and longer for our children and ourselves. Society currently devotes so much energy and resources towards saving lives, which, in reality, is simply postponing death, he notes. If it is right to save life, Harris reasons, then it should also be right to postpone death by stemming the flow of diseases that carry us to the grave.

For Harris, having the ability to improve our species lot in life but refusing to do so, makes little sense. He has a difficult time understanding why some people are so insistent that we shouldn’t try to improve upon human evolution.

“Can you imagine our ape ancestors getting together and saying, ‘this is pretty good, guys. Let’s stop it right here!’. That’s the equivalent of what people say today.”

Ethicists, however, warn that genetically modifying embryos will lead to designer babies preloaded with socially desirable traits involving height, intelligence and coloring.

Dr David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, warns, “This is the first step on the road that will lead to the nightmare of designer babies and a new eugenics.”

Harris, however, doesn’t support that argument. He says it’s not about “beauty” it’s about health, and what parent wouldn’t want a healthy child, he asks.

“Certainly, sometimes we want competitive advantage [for our children], but for the enhancements I talk about, the competitive advantage is not the prime motive. I didn’t give my son a good diet in the hope that others eat a bad diet and die prematurely. I’m happy if everyone has a good diet. The moral imperative should be that enhancements are generally available because they are good for everyone.”

The only other route to equality, he says, is to level down so that everyone is as uneducated, unhealthy and unenhanced as the lowest in society – which would be much more unethical in his opinion. Even though we can’t offer a liver transplant to all who need them, he says, we still carry them out for the lucky few. “Much better to try to raise the baseline, even if some are left behind.”

The Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill in currently under consideration in Britain will likely make it legal to create GM embryos in that country, but only for research—implantation in the womb will still be banned—at least for now. However, ethicists believe that the legislation could easily be relaxed even further in the future.

People who believe that genetically modified humans is something way into the future might want to consider that many experts are worried that some forms of it are already happening in the sports world.

Faster, bigger, better, stronger—in theory, the single most effective way to radically alter your physical capacities is to manipulate your genes. Athletes are beginning to take notice. Now that we’ve mapped out the human genome and identified exactly which genes make you buff, tough and rough—experts are concerned about the future of genetic doping.

Gene doping could spawn athletes capable of out-running, out-jumping and out-cycling even the world’s greatest champions. However, researchers at the University of Florida are attempting to prevent that from happening by detecting the first cases of gene doping in professional athletes before the practice becomes mainstream.

Montreal-based World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), responsible for monitoring the conduct of athletes, is working with investigators around the globe to develop testing to identify competitors who have injected themselves with genetic material that is capable of enhancing muscle mass or heightening endurance.

“If an athlete injects himself in the muscle with DNA, would we be able to detect that?” asked one of France’s leading gene therapy researchers, Philippe Moullier, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Gene Therapy Laboratory at the Universite de Nantes in France.

Right now, he says the answer is clearly “no”. But that may soon change. The UF scientists are among several groups collaborating with national and global anti-doping organizations to develop a test that can detect evidence of “doped” DNA.

“WADA has had a research program in place for some years now, to try to develop tests for gene-based doping,” said Theodore Friedmann, M.D., head of the agency’s panel on genetic doping and director of the gene therapy program at the University of California, San Diego.

Nearly every day now we are inundated with new genetic discoveries. Scientists can now pinpoint many specific genes including being lean, living a long life, improved self-healing, thrill seeking behavior, and having an improved memory among many other incredible traits. Many believe that these genes can be manipulated in ordinary humans, in effect creating Super-Mutants.

Theoretically, options are nearly limitless. Even a gene that exists in another species could be brought over to a human cell. Imagine some of the incredible traits of the animal kingdom that some humans don’t possess such as night vision, amazing agility, or the ability to breath underwater. The precedence for these types of radical changes is already in place. Experimental mice, for example, were successfully given the human ability to see in color. If animals can be engineered to have human traits, then humans can certainly be mutated to have desirable animal traits.

It is even thought possible to so drastically alter human genomes that a type of superhuman species could emerge. The fear with germline engineering is that since it is inheritable, offspring and all succeeding generations would carry the modified traits. This is one reason why this type of engineering is currently banned- it could lead to irreversible alteration of the entire human species.

Ethics, not scientific limitations, is the real brick wall. Most scientists believe manipulating genes in order to make an individual healthy is a noble and worthwhile pursuit. Some are against even that notion, arguing that historically amazing individuals have sometimes been plagued by genetic mental and physical disorders, which inadvertently shaped the greatness of their lives. Should we rob the human race of character shaping frailty? Very few scientists would dare to publicly endorse the idea of using genetic engineering to make a normal, healthy individuals somehow superior to the rest of the human race.

“The push to redesign human beings, animals and plants to meet the commercial goals of a limited number of individuals is fundamentally at odds with the principle of respect for nature,”
said Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth in his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

However, would it be so bad if the human race were slightly improved? What if a relatively simple procedure could make an individual and his or her offspring resistant to cancer? After all, Nature isn’t always right. Nature has naturally selected many people to carry the burden of uncomfortable and often lethal genetic disorders. If nature knows best, then shouldn’t we quit trying to “improve” upon nature by “curing” people of genetic conditions we consider inferior? Many say we shouldn’t change human genetics, UNLESS it’s the RIGHT thing to do. Who gets to decide where the line is between righteous endeavor and the corruption of nature? These are the questions facing our generation.

Posted by Rebecca Sato

Facebook Users' Verdict On Redesign: Hate! - CBS News

So there's a new Facebook app out there, designed to poll users on the social network's latest redesign. The results? Hundreds of thousands have responded. 94 percent give it a thumbs-down. Ouch.

read more | digg story

Battlestar Galactica Says Goodbye: Reasons We’ll Miss It

Battlestar Galactica Says Goodbye: Reasons We’ll Miss It

Posted using ShareThis

Facebook Poll: 94% Of Users Don’t Like Redesign
261 Comments
by Michael Arrington on March 19, 2009

A Facebook application is polling users on the the new site layout . So far, just over 5% of the nearly 800,000 respondents give it a thumbs up. The rest go the other way.

Users can also leave comments with their thoughts. Recent user comments include “Missing so many features I used to adore. I am saddened,” “Please change it back to the way it was,” and “I hate it and if it doesn’t change I will only check it once in awhile.” Ah, the fickle user.

Until January users and advertisers could create polls directly within Facebook, and the company used them extensively at the Davos World Economic Forum. It would be great it they brought that feature back directly.
get widgetminimize
CrunchBase Information
Facebook
Facebook image
Website: facebook.com
Location: Palo Alto, California, United States
Founded: February 1, 2004
Funding: $516M

On February 4th, 2004 Mark Zuckerberg launched The Facebook, a social network that was at the time exclusively for Harvard students. It was a huge hit: in 2 weeks, half of the stu schools in… Learn More
Information provided by CrunchBase

Twitter Turns Three

Twitter Turns Three

Posted using ShareThis

Home / Featured / Network / Social Media Marketing / Twitter / The 14 Types of Twitter Personalities
The 14 Types of Twitter Personalities

Tweet ItTwitter. It’s all the rage with news sources, celebrities, politicians, and millions of everyday folks getting in and playing around with it. The premise was simple: in 140 characters or less, answer a simple question that your followers and anyone who visits your page can see: “What are you doing?”

Since its creation, Twitter has both stayed the same and experienced evolutionary changes. The premise hasn’t changed, but what it means to people and how they use it have changed dramatically up until now. While more uses will certainly pop up, for now, everyone can be classified as having one or more of the following Twitter personalities.

These personalities and how we present them to the world define our uses and intentions on the Twittersphere. Whether we know it or not, these snippets of life that we cram into 140 characters say more about us as Tweeple than they say about us as people. For many, the distinction between the two is very thin.
The Purist

The site asks, “What are you doing?” and that’s exactly what The Purist delivers. This is the point where many new users start. Many of them continue indefinitely, following the lines of the original intent of the site to truly microblog every aspect of their life, whether exciting or mundane.
Tweeting Style:

* Good morning Twitter.
* I am doing ____ now
* I am at ___ now
* I _____ed just now
* I’m _____ing right now.
* Good night Twitter.

The Clever Purist

The Clever Purist will answer the question just as stated. The difference between them and The Purist is that they put a spin on their tweets to make their actions more entertaining or interesting than they really are. These users can accumulate a strong following once they are noticed as other users see them as adding value a notch above others in their stream.

Any time you can take the mundane and throw a spin into it that makes people think, smile, laugh, or a combination of the three, you’re sure to be followed and retweeted often. The funny ones employ a Seinfeld-esque style of looking at nothing and making something out of it.
Tweeting Style:

* I’m ____ing (something mundane) while I’m ____ing (something interesting)
* Watching ____ on TV begs the (interesting) question ______?
* Have you ever noticed that ____ would be better with bacon on it?

The Journalist

There are live journalists tweeting their findings to the world. There are citizen journalists breaking the news happening in front of them. There are bloggers posting more than just their posts; they post their thoughts on other issues and websites as well.

The Journalist is the Twitter personality that is getting almost as much attention as the celebrities joining twitter. It is as a collective more than as individuals that they are turning Twitter into the place to find and share what is happening in the world as it’s happening. Hundreds of stories have been written about the Twitter army being on the scene first at major events, tweeting pictures before camera crews at local television stations can find the keys to their van.
Tweeting Style:

Unlike traditional journalism, the rulebook is thrown out the window with Twitter Journalism. Time is everything - breaking news breaks fast on Twitter, opinions can go stale and must be concise, and links fall to obscurity if nobody with a lot of followers tweets or retweets it. Twitter is changing the face of journalism more than any website in history.
The Celeb Who Keeps it Real

Twitter is a doorway through which many celebrities are able to interact with fans, foes, and everyone in between in a direct yet safe manner. Most use it to thank their fans, promote their upcoming shows, and generally establish a constant public relations facade that humanizes them carefully and in a calculated way.

Others just don’t give a damn and they tweet whatever they want to tweet because they like to tweet.

One celebrity in particular does a tremendous job of being himself. Shaquille O’Neal, @the_real_shaq, is about as real as it gets, and thankfully for his fans and followers he’s a very entertaining guy, even when he “keeps it real”.
Tweeting Style:

Instead of singling out other celebrities who tend to use Twitter as a PR/Marketing tool, we’ll take a peek at what makes Shaq real. He pleads with nobody in particular (possibly even himself) “Can I plaese cheat on my diet and got to dairy Queen pls pls pls”. A few minutes later, you see this image linked through a tweet:

Classic Shaq.
The Link Mogul/Retweeter

There are those who enjoy what they find on Twitter more than what they have to say themselves. The Link Mogul/Retweeter uses Twitter as a resource and they’re happy to share what they find with their own followers regardless of where they find it.

They retweet what they find on Twitter and tweet what they find off of Twitter.

In many ways, this personality type includes the people who keep the streams churning. They bring interesting finds to light, whether it’s a link or simply something interesting that someone else has said.

They retweet like crazy, selflessly bringing attention to other people’s content and other users accounts, not because they have ulterior motives or selfish goals but because they find good stuff and they want others to see it as well.

Without these users, many wonderful things on Twitter would never reach more than a few people.
Tweeting Style:

Find links, find interesting tweets that others make, find interesting links that others tweet, and get it out to their portion of the Twittersphere. It’s that easy.

New users who do no longer want to be The Purist often migrate to a variation of this personality.
The Tastemaker

What is happening today? What will be happening tomorrow? What articles should we read? What videos should we watch? Who should we be following? What’s the next big thing?

For better or for worse, there are trendsetters and tastemakers in just about every aspect of Web 2.0. Twitter is no exception, and to accomodate the 140 characters or less aspect, the Tastemakers on Twitter have found 3 major avenues of using their influence to make changes, send traffic, and often even make the news.
Tweeting Style:

* Tweeting links to the coolest, most interesting or entertaining links on the web (hopefully before anyone else does)
* Asking questions of their tremendous following to find out what’s ticking in the world (or at least a microcosm of the world)
* Discuss issues publicly with other powerful users, getting both batch of followers interested in the conversation and subsequently whatever topic they are discussing.

The Everyman’s Friend

The first question that gets asked at least a few times a week of people who are following tens, even hundreds of thousands of people is “how can you possibly keep up with all of those people?”

If asked under truth the influence of Sodium Pentothal, most would simply answer, “I don’t. I can’t. I try, but it’s too much.”

Still, there are a select few who DO try to keep up with their tremendous stream of tweets.

They DO reply to every @reply sent to them, every direct message thrown at them, and still somehow find the time to answer questions and offer help to those who don’t ask them directly.

They read their stream, find interesting points of conversation, and act upon them in some way.

They are Everyman’s friend.

They keep Twitter friendly and help new users get better.
Tweeting Style:

* Lots of @replies
* Lots of responses to questions posed to the community
* Lots of time spent on the site
* LOTS OF TWEETS!

Continue Reading Twitter Personalities 8-14

The Twitter personalities above were positive, important aspects of the community that help to keep the stream moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, with great power comes gre… actually, it should be said that with increased popularity comes those who will do what they can to ruin it.

Below, you will find the users who are, to some degree, not the kind of user that most would want to be. It isn’t that they’re bad people or even bad users. People are allowed to tweet just about any darn way they want to tweet. It’s a free Twitter (for now) and nobody wants to have their Twitter personality type classified as negative.

With that said, we’ll classify the following personality types as ones that are (to be politically correct) “community challenged”. No examples will be given. We aren’t here to call anyone out or to spend too much time talking about the, but they do exist and need to be on this list.
The Spammer

It’s the most unavoidable negative aspect of the Internet. If there are people gathering at any site, spammers will surely follow. An entire post or two could be written about the different types of spammers out there, but if you’re a spammer you know who you are and most users know how to recognize you as well.
The Stalker

Twitter can be a wonderful community that allows people to connect with others that they never would have known existed otherwise. Unfortunately, some users are the types that you wish you never knew existed. More importantly, you wish they never knew you existed.

The Twitter Stalker comes in many forms. They can send @replies and DMs all day, every day, and get upset if you don’t reply to every single one of them.

They can have a name or avatar similar to yours. They can even start requesting to call you on the phone or (gulp!) meet you in person.

Communication is one of the best parts of Twitter, but let’s keep it to Twitter, shall we?

I know I said that I wouldn’t use examples, but this one was too funny to pass up. The user’s name: “Kevin’s Nose”.
The Self-Promoter

Some would classify The Self-Promoter as a spammer, but there is a distinction. The self-promoter normally tries to get involved. They try to be a good friend, say interesting things, retweet others, and other aspects of the good personalities listed before.

The difference is that they don’t really care about any of it. They are simply trying to show that they are good and active on Twitter so they can get their own message out. It could be just the link in their profile. It could be an innocent DM here or there. It might be the occasional tweet mentioning that “If anyone needs help with social media marketing, I’m a guru.”

Many are, and there’s nothing wrong with being a guru and pointing it out to prospective customers. Still, I have to ask, “When did they leave facebook and migrate to Twitter?”
The Blog/Site Bot

This is not a condemnation of Blogs! I love blogs. I don’t mind following blogs. The only problem I have is when blogs install a plugin and don’t configure it right. What ends up happening is that every follow’s stream is clogged with dozens, even hundreds of blog posts as the new plugin posts everything that has ever been written on the blog.

Other sites use a feed and site bot to post every new happening on the site. When a site is updated dozens of times a day, these bots can be exceptionally annoying.
The Clueless

There’s nothing wrong with a new person having no clue how to use the site. We were all there at one point or another. The users that still seem clueless 6 months and 400 updates later - they’re a problem. With so many guides available and so many users willing to lend a helping hand with tips and advice, there’s no reason why anyone should not understand the site after a certain point of usage.
The Real Person Who Tries to be a Celeb

Some may draw parallels to the Self-Promoter, but again, there is a distinction. Having 10k followers does not make someone a celebrity. It may be the most exposure that they get, and they may be able to add and remove new friends as well as the next user, but there is no reason to get high and mighty because a lot of people followed you back.

Humility is a quality. Be thankful that you have the eyes of so many. Don’t gloat or boast about your followers until your name starts getting circulated on more than just a few thousand people’s Twitter stream.
The Troll and the Meta-Twitter Troll

If humans are allowed to post their thoughts, some of those humans will actually be trolls. It’s part of a troll’s nature to flame others regardless of the venue or circumstance. That’s what being a troll is all about.

The Meta-Twitter Troll is a relatively new breed that has hopped onto Twitter because of it’s tremendous growth and the buzz surrounding it and their trolling involves making others feel bad about being on Twitter in the first place. They go beyond ripping on people because of what they Tweet. They flame them because of their very Twitter existence. These are dangerous users capable of driving other users away through shame and intimidation. Block them whenever one enters your stream.
Which Personalities Do You Have?

The vast majority of users do not fall into any one Twitter personality type. Most are a combination of two or three. Users evolve as quickly as the site itself grows. Did we miss any types? Which personality type(s) do you consider yourself?

Tweet ItRemember, you can lead a horse to Twitter but you can’t make him Tweet.

Madoff Must Stay in Prison, Appeals Court Says

• Recommend
• E-Mail
• Send To Phone
• Print
• Reprints
• ShareClose
  • Linkedin
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • My Space
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Permalink
  • 
    

By LESLIE WAYNE

Published: March 20, 2009

A federal appeals court denied on Friday a request by a lawyer for Bernard L. Madoff that he be released from jail until his sentencing in June for running a $65 billion Ponzi scheme.

Skip to next paragraph

Related

DealBook: Text of Court Decsion Lawyer Asks Appeal Panel to Grant Bail for Madoff

The three-judge panel issued its ruling less than 24 hours after Ira Lee Sorkin, Mr. Madoff’s lawyer, had asked that the 70-year-old Mr. Madoff be allowed to return to his Manhattan penthouse apartment. He is being held in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan after pleading guilty last week to 11 felony counts of fraud. He faces a maximum of 150 years in prison when he is sentenced on June 16.

The appeals court order upholds an earlier Federal District Court decision that Mr. Madoff represented a flight risk and should not be released on bail. Mr. Madoff had been held on $10 million bail since his arrest on Dec. 11, confined to his Upper East Side apartment building and protected by security guards, paid for by his wife. He was also required to wear an ankle bracelet and could leave his apartment only for court appearances.

“In light of the defendant’s age (70) and the length of a potential sentence (150 years), he has an incentive to flee, and that because he has the means to do so, he presents a risk of flight, and therefore should not be released,” the appeals court order said. It was issued by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs and Judges Robert D. Sack and Richard C. Wesley of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The three judges heard oral arguments on Thursday, during which Mr. Sorkin argued that because of the “platoons of people” surrounding Mr. Madoff’s apartment he would be unable to flee. In addition, Mr. Sorkin argued that Mr. Madoff — who did not appear in court for the Thursday hearing — would be unable to flee because his financial assets had been frozen.

But the appeals court agreed with the arguments presented by the federal prosecutor, Marc O. Litt, who said the fact that Mr. Madoff faced the equivalent of a life sentence made his risk of flight greater after his guilty plea than before.

His guilty plea removed any presumption of innocence, the appeals court noted, and added, “The defendant has a residence abroad, and has had ample opportunity over a long period of time to secret substantial resources outside the country.”

Many of Mr. Madoff’s many victims applauded in court when Mr. Madoff exited in handcuffs last week. His Ponzi scheme wiped out the investments of thousands of people and scores of charitable foundations. In addition, it has drawn heightened regulatory scrutiny of other fraudulent investment schemes.

For instance, in a statement issued on Friday, Bart Chilton, a commissioner of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, said that “rampant Ponzimonium” was being uncovered and commented on Mr. Madoff’s incarceration.

Referring to Mr. Madoff’s victims, Mr. Chilton said: “While he ‘made off” with their money, he has now traded in his Manhattan penthouse for a cell in the Big House.”

New Questions Arise About Natasha Richardson's Death

Not satisfied with the statements from the ski resort about Natasha Richardson's accident, The New York Times investigated and has unovered discrepancies between the facts and what the Mont Tremblant ski resort told the press. The resort said Natasha had a minor fall and was laughing and joking afterwards. An ambulance was called, which was turned away by the resort who said the actress did not want to be examined. The ambulance crew agreed that they were turned back, but the did see Natasha. But she wasn't laughing and joking -- she was sitting on a stretcher. The other discrepancy is the timeline. The resort said the second ambulance came about an hour later. But she was not admitted to a hospital for treatment for four hours, according to records obtained by The New York Times.

Those discrepancies seemed to introduce new questions about whether Ms. Richardson, who suffered an epidural hematoma — an accumulation of blood between the brain and the skull — after her fall, could have been saved had she been treated faster.

*****

A brain surgeon not involved in her treatment, Dr. David J. Langer, the director of cerebrovascular neurosurgery at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, Beth Israel Medical Center and Long Island College Hospital, said that a clot can develop from the bleeding following such a trauma.

Dr. Langer added that if a patient undergoes surgery — ideally within an hour of the injury — to relieve the pressure, remove the clot and stop the bleeding, the patient can recover. "It can be quite dramatic," Dr. Langer said. "It's one of the most acute neurological emergencies. It's one of the few times where it's life or death, where you can truly save somebody's life, or they die if you don't get to them."

In Ms. Richardson's case, ambulance records showed that she did not receive her first attention from a doctor until 4:20 p.m., at the local hospital, in Ste. Agathe, Quebec, about 25 miles from Mont Tremblant.

It's certainly true that the ski resort issued a number of self-serving statements the day of the accident. The resort spokesperson said the fall was minor, that she didn't hit anyone or anything, that she laughed off the incident and that a ski instructor was right with her and that the ski patrol stayed with her after the incident. The statements clearly indicated that she got to the hospital much earlier than she really did.

Tags: natasha-richardson-death | natasha-richardson | mont-tremblant | epidural-hematoma

Posted on March 20, 2009
Permalink | Subscribe |