COMPANIES that publish mainstream people's interviews without paying a fee are the "parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet" and will soon be challenged, Robert Thomson, the Australian-born editor of The Wall Street Journal has warned.

Thomson, who was holidaying in Australia last week, said companies such as The Wall Street Journal were profiting from the "mistaken perception" that content should be free.

"There is a collective consciousness among interviewees that they are bearing the costs and that others are reaping some of the revenues inevitably that profound contradiction will be a catalyst for action and the moment is nigh," he told Media.

"There is no doubt that certain websites are best described as parasites or tech tapeworms in the intestines of the internet."

Thomson, a former editor of The Times who was appointed editor-in-chief of Dow Jones and managing editor of The Wall Street Journal last May, said consumers must understand why they were paying a premium for content.

"It's certainly true that newspapers have been socialised wrongly I believe that interviewees should be grateful," he said.

"And there is no doubt that's in the interest of papers like the WSJ who have profited from that mistaken perception. And they have little incentive to recognise the value they are trading on that's created by others."

Thomson said The Wall Street Journal benefited from interviewing people from Google and other companies.

"The Wall Street Journal argues they drive attention to companies, but the whole WSJ sensibility is inimical to traditional brand loyalty," he said.

"The Wall Street Journal encourages exclusivity and shamelessly so and therefore a significant proportion of their readers don't necessarily associate that comment with the interviewee.

"Therefore revenue that should be associated with the interviewee is not garnered."

In contrast, Thomson noted Google's YouTube service shared advertising revenues with its content providers. "The model is entirely different and certainly proper," he said.

Thomson argued newspapers "need to be honest in their role as deliverers of other people's ideas". And as those sites were exploiting the value of mainstream business thought, "we have to be at least as clever as they are in understanding the value of our own filler".

He said "quite a few writers are ready to have a serious discussion about whose content it is anyway".

Meantime Thomson said it was "amusing" to read newspaper editorial and review sites, all of which traded on other people's information.

"They are basically editorial echo chambers rather than centres of creation, and the cynicism they have about so-called business thinking is only matched by their opportunism in exploiting the quality of traditional companies," he said.

Thomson also said it was incumbent on content creators to make their own websites compelling for readers. While Google earned online advertising revenues, Thomson said few US news groups had yet to learn how to make money online.

"Papers should look at what their assets are -- is it their people? What is their role in any given society? And how do those assets play on the web? So how do we create an experience for readers using those assets which is clearly a premium experience?

"And if you think that through starting from first principles rather than from an existing business view, there are opportunities. But I'll leave it to others to figure out what they may be.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Celebrity gossip used to be my outletI visited people.com, perezhilton.com, tmz.com, and eonline.com multiple times each day.  I subscribed to US Weekly and always bought at least one Star, People or OK! at the grocery store every week.
Now, I go days without even thinking about checking out celebrity gossip.  Gabby and I were talking about this the other day, and I think there are two main reasons for both of us separating ourselves from the celebrity gossip bandwagon.
First, the majority of the tabloid news is about fake celebrities.  I do not care about Spencer, Heidi, some mother that has 14 kids, John and Kate, and every other non-celebrity out there who has somehow been making headlines.  Stephanie Pratt on last weeks cover of US Weekly?  Serisouly?  COME ON.
Yes, I do watch a few of the shows that these fake celebs spawn frombut believe me, I get enough details about their lives through TV.  Mentions about them in tabloids would be ok, but lately they are the cover, the focus, and the entire story.
And apparently there are a lot of people interested in these fake celebrities.  More than 10 million people watched John and Kate announce their divorce that everyone already knew was happening.  But does that story then have to consume all other celebrity gossip?  Arent the real celebs out there doing anything?  Dont they have things to promote?
And second, I think its the gossip outlets fault.  They will do absolutely anything for a headline.  Theyll draw the Ben-Jen-Angelina triangle out every way they can think ofthree times each.  They will claim anything to sell a few magazines  how many times has Jennifer Aniston been pregnant so far?
Its hard to beleive the magazines when they try to say something one because theyre track record isnt great, and another because the celebrities (fake and real) think they can fool us and issue statements denying true reports.  Everyone from Madonna to those John and Kate people are guilty of this.
So where does that leave celebrity gossip fans?  On Gabbys tip, I now rely on Page 6 for celebrity gossip.  They dont usually mess around with those annoying fakes.  She reads the superficial.com because the writer is hilariousI do need to check him out more bc its true regardless if hes commenting on a real or fake celebrity.
The one site I have banned and refuse to even ever consider? Perez Hilton.  That man is disgusting.  He draws semen and penises on people and then expects to be treated like a respected human being.  He wants equality for him and the LGBT community, but doesnt believe in true equality because no one is allowed to disagree with him on anything ever.  He doesnt only gossip, he is mean and ruthless, and its really uncalled for.  He targets everyone including babies. Frankly, Im surprised he hasnt been hit before.  Maybe he should hire an outstanding security team.
But back to my main point, if celebrity tabloids want to get me back as a fan and reader, they need to make some changes.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Well, Facebook Connect is not just a bright piece that makes your log in breezy. It has transformed the way we interact in on a social network. It not only enable you log in to many sites with your Facebook ID (Open ID), but it also pings back your participation (if you allow it to) to your Facebook profile. Facebook Connect is an honest attempt from Facebook to allow its members access to Facebook user data outside Facebook itself. Connect keeps you connected with your Facebook identity, friends and others at any website. Whether for business, blogging or socializing Facebook Connect could be beneficial for users in various ways. Out of the lot, we sorted out top 5 benefits of Facebook Connect that can be of real help.

Similar posts: fake celebs

The official music video for the Jonas Brothers' single "Paranoid" has been released.

The video's okay, I guess. But then I can't think of anything else that would fit with the song lyrics. I would have preferred Joe to sing this song, but I liked that it really showcased Nick's voice.

I wonder if fans are still watching the JONAS series on the Disney Channel. I keep forgetting to watch it online here.

The brothers were supposed to have a live FACEBOOK chat on Thursday May 21st, but they didn't because they're on tour. They're scheduled to have another live FACEBOOK chat on May 28th. We'll see if they go through with that one.

Similar posts: fake celebs

BS: There has been several stories involving copyright infringement in the mainstream press as of late. What is your stance on copyright? Do you see strong copyright as a reflection of artist rights in general? Or do you feel that copyright restricts creativity? Do you have a stance on this issue?

BH: I feel quite strongly about copyright, though I respect the right of other artists to opt for Creative Commons licenses in respect to their own work. In terms of artists referencing existing artworks, I feel there is room for tributes / homages to and commentary on other artworks / films / etc., however, crediting the inspiration in some way, even simply in the titling of the work is basic etiquette.

Creating derivative works, especially where the derivative work doesn't clearly reference or acknowledge the original work or artist, is something I believe should only be done with the permission of the artist, whether through their assigning of a Creative Commons license that allows the creation of derivative works, or with direct permission from the artist.

I've had other artists approach me at various times in regard to creating new interpretations of my work and I'm not adverse to the idea. Where permission has been given the final piece is akin to a collaboration in many instances. It is something that I feel is very personal though, and where you may be agreeable to one image being reinterpreted, you may not be agreeable to others.

In regard to copyright of concepts and ideas in art, it can be very difficult to prove and defend, and many argue there are no new ideas / everything's been done before. However, that doesn't mean you can't make an idea your own, or that you can never photograph the same subject or concept if someone else has already shot it (painted it, drawn it, etc). If that were the case we should all put our cameras, brushes, etc., down and move on with our lives without art.

In my view copyright doesn't stop you putting your own spin on an idea, subject matter, etc., but hopefully prevents artists copying something directly from the source. I have seen a number of instances recently where artists have copied quite specific concepts and compositions from other artists, and I believe that is only acceptable from a learning perspective and with full credit provided to the original artist, and in respect to online publication, with clear links to the original work.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but passing off someone else's highly original concept as your own is something I find reprehensible. I do feel strong copyright is a reflection of artists' rights in general, in that especially with the visual arts, artists should receive the same level of credit and right to royalties as musicians, authors and such are entitled to.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Ron Paul Leads in Polls of People Who Have Heard Him Speak


by Jennifer Haman


by Jennifer Haman








DIGG THIS





After the first three debates on National television, three mainstream news channels featured polls asking the American people who won. After the first debate on May 3rd, MSNBC ran a poll obtaining over 72,000 responses showing Ron Paul was the most convincing candidate receiving 45% of the vote. His nearest competitor was Mitt Romney who received 18%. Fox news ran its own poll after the second debates on May 15, and with over 40,000 votes Ron Paul came in second with 25% of the vote. Watching Sean Hannity's face was priceless as while he was saying that Ron Paul's chances were over in this election, Fox's polling numbers flashed across the screen and had Ron Paul in the lead. He immediately did his best spin to claim the polls had been rigged. MSNBC also ran a poll about that debate and discovered Ron Paul was, again, the most convincing candidate with 64% of the over 25,000 responses. After the third debate on June 5, CNN's poll of over 25,000 respondents showed Ron Paul won with 60% of the vote.





One would think with such a strong showing on the online polls for a "second tier" candidate that the mainstream media (MSM) would have discussed this phenomenon at length and on the front page. However, no such stories appeared. In fact, MSM pundits did their best to ignore these figures and instead focused mainly on who they deemed to be the top three choices; effectively, taking control of the election and deciding quite undemocratically who was a "real" candidate.





Even though the MSM is largely ignoring him, Ron Paul is taking the Internet by storm. His name leads in searched terms ahead of even Paris Hilton, his YouTube videos have been viewed over one million times and he has more Meetup groups than all other GOP candidates combined. Poll after poll conducted on the Internet shows Ron Paul winning or at least in the top three. Yet, these polls are completely discounted and Ron Paul's tremendous Internet support is sloughed off by the MSM. Occasionally, the MSM will grant some notice of the huge grassroots support online but then discount it by saying "he may be doing well online but he is only polling at 1 or 2 percent." Doesn't anyone see a disconnect between those two clauses? Who do they think is on the Internet? Pet mice running around in tubes? The Internet, for those who seem confused, is a link of people who write things and have ideas and OPINIONS. The 300-plus Meetup groups he has across the country are also attended by people. The MSM is trying to get us to believe that Ron Paul is only polling at 1% because that is what was said on a few polls and the fact that he is polling much higher on the Internet does not count. It is as if they believe that the people on the Internet are not real, their opinions do not count, and the Internet polls could not possibly be correct. The argument is absurd, insulting and designed to keep Ron Paul out of the mainstream public's eye. The MSM ignores his success because of the misguided concept that people do not want to "waste" a vote. It is never a waste to vote for what you want: indeed, nothing could be more wasteful than voting for what you do not want because you think it the lesser of two evils. Voting for evil is always a bad idea.





Not only is the MSM staying mum to keep you from seeing Ron Paul as a legitimate candidate but there have been active attempts to hide information about his successes. After the third debate CNN not only ran a poll, but also asked viewers to voice their opinions about the debates. Comments started pouring in supporting Ron Paul, along with all the votes. The next day CNN removed the comments from their webpage. Clever supporters found these lost comments through Google's cache (a technology that takes a virtual picture of a webpage on a certain date, so you can see if it has changed).





When silence does not work, biased pundits accuse Ron Paul supporters of "spamming" the votes (that is voting over and over for their candidate) and claim that this huge show of support is really being done by a few campaigners. This claim is specious for several reasons. First, if it was so easy to spam the polls, all the candidates would do it and online polling numbers would look more like an American Idol session with tens of millions of votes cast. Second, anyone, who understands that the Internet is not a series of tubes, knows that it is easy for a web designer to develop a poll that prohibits more than one vote per person. In fact, most of the online polls do restrict you to voting only once and if you attempt to vote again, even weeks later, you get a polite message that your vote will not count. Finally, along with the polls themselves, people leave comments, thousands of individual comments.





So let's look at these polls and their methodologies.





Many online polls have tens of thousands of responses, especially the ones done by the MSM immediately after the debates, while old-fashioned telephone pollsters only get responses from hundreds. Yet, only the old telephone polls are reported on by the MSM. We are asked to accept that a poll with 600 persons responding is more accurate than a poll with 70,000 respondents. For example, a much-cited Zogby poll admits that they only targeted 500 interviews and drew their samples randomly from telephone CD's of a national listed sample. (In that poll Ron Paul has a 3% lead). A recent Washington Post article cited its own telephone poll that only reached 1205 adults, and that was used to say Ron Paul is only receiving 1% support.





Instead of citing polls that have 70 to 100 times more respondents, the MSM still sticks to old-fashioned telephone-polling methods. The world has changed. We no longer need to depend on poor polls that only call a few hundred people, nor should we be relying on them to tell the whole story. Some say random telephone sampling is more effective just because of its randomness and therefore there is no self-selection bias as in the online polls in which one chooses to partake. However, elections are also based on self-selection and are only won and lost by those who choose to go to the polls: so shouldn't the self-selected polling methods be more accurate? The good news is that of those who have heard Ron Paul speak (if only for the 5 minutes or so he gets in the debates) he is leading by a landslide; unfortunately, not enough people are getting to hear about him.





This race would look much different if the leading headlines the days following the GOP debates were (in order of the debates): 1. Ron Paul takes GOP by surprise and WINS the debate. 2. Ron Paul once again a leading contender in second debate, comes in second. 3. Ron Paul wins third debate hands down: other candidates struggling to keep up. If the people were told Ron Paul won the debates, more would learn about him and his support would grow exponentially.





In all fairness, the polls that show that Ron Paul is ahead with 98% of the vote are just as inaccurate as the polls that show he is only polling at 1% and the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But the largest online polls, the ones taken after the debates, have him receiving somewhere between 45% and 60% of the votes. So, why the big disparity in polling numbers? Some have suggested that Ron Paul has a lot of young supporters who do not own landlines and thus are not being polled. Other explanations come to mind as well: 1. Typical polls will only call a certain type of voter e.g. people who voted Republican in the last election and this will leave out a lot of Ron Paul supporters. Ron Paul's message of liberty and freedom reaches across the aisle and a lot of previously registered Democrats are switching parties to vote for him in this election. For the same reason, many Libertarians and Independents are also going to be voting as Republicans this election. Much of his support also comes from young people who are voting in their first Presidential election and thus would have no previous voting record. 2. Ron Paul's message of freedom and liberty is so exciting that people who have decided not to vote in past elections have decided that finally they have someone for whom to vote. 3. Some polls are so biased they do not even list Ron Paul as a choice (coincidentally, in a few of those "other" is leading the pack): Hard to win a poll when your name is not on the list. 4. Ron Paul fights for the individual, not the government, and his message appeals to those who like to be left alone. During this election many individuals have caller ID and often choose to avoid telemarketers and callers they do not know. 5. Some of these polls begin with intrusive questions about a person's gender, religious affiliation, annual income, and other information some see as none of anyone's business. If you refuse to answer the initial questions they will not continue with the questions. The type of person that likes Ron Paul, also tends to like privacy. 6. Sadly, not enough people are getting to hear about his policies.





Once they hear him, Ron Paul's supporters are very passionate about his message. A search of Internet "blogs" shows people writing zealously about him. Nothing could be more thrilling than to see an 18-year-old excited about the election process, shouting out support for Ron Paul, begging to hear more information about the Federal Reserve and its implications for the country. Through his campaign, Ron Paul is teaching many the benefits of limited government. There should be no surprise that his message is so well received; it is the one taught to us by Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and other founding fathers. It is the message of liberty, freedom, with the basis of a republic, not a democracy. We have been lied to so often, and our Constitution ripped apart at the seams, that when a person comes along speaking basic truths and principles, it awakens a part of us buried for so long.





When ignoring Ron Paul does not work, and removing messages about him receives backlash, the next stage is to call his supporters rabid, nuts, crazy, unstable. If you cannot attack the man, attack his supporters. Yet who can blame people who get upset when a life-saving message comes along and the MSM tries to keep it from the public. Ron Paul's message is life-saving. He wants to end the war, he wants to help ease poverty by eliminating the Federal Reserve and its ability to steal through monetary inflation. He wants to end the Income Tax and give those who need it most their entire salaries. The anger you hear is frustration by his supporters at being marginalized, just as they are by so many government actions these days, and fury when all this support is discounted. Of course people are getting upset. They do not like being manipulated and they especially do not like it when a Presidential campaign is being hijacked.





The worst part about the MSM treatment of Ron Paul, is that finally the people have a candidate they really love, and a man who would get this country back on the proper course. They have a man who will follow the Constitutional course that served this country so well for so long. Instead of rejoicing and helping the country and the people find their way, corporate media giants are trying to silence his message by ignoring him completely or reporting on only the most obscure, misleading and slanderous articles (could this be because Ron Paul is also against corporate welfare?). Most recently, even the Associated Press got into the "let's lead with misleading statements" game. In reporting on how Dr. Paul decided to hold his own rally after being the only candidate in the debates to not be invited to a Presidential Forum in Iowa, the AP's first line in the article was that Ron Paul has added "party crashing" to his debate tactics. As any ten-year-old knows, to crash a party you have to attend the party. Ron Paul had not announced he would attend the Presidential forum. Instead, he decided to hold a completely separate event immediately following the forum in the same venue. That is not party crashing, that is called campaigning. The article went on to tell the truth about the situation, but that catch phrase was repeated as a headline across the country impugning Dr. Paul's character. See for example this ABC News headline: Republican Ron Paul to Crash Iowa Forum.





Just as Ron Paul spoke of blowback in the context of military interference in foreign affairs, unless the mainstream media ends the Ron Paul blackout and misinformation drive, they will lose the next generation who is seeing it as a biased, manipulating, election-fixing force not to be trusted.





When Ron Paul gets heard or seen, he is liked. As soon as people who do not own computers are able to see him or read his message his numbers in the national polls will rise just as they have done on the Internet. In general, the American people are saying they want liberty and freedom: Now, if only the MSM would listen.





"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Doing her best to bring in the bucks, Lindsay Lohan stepped out for a photo shoot for Spanish Vogue in Los Angeles on Wednesday afternoon (May 6).
Donning a curly blonde wig, the Georgia Rule starlet was reportedly striking a few poses for whats being describes as a Marilyn Monroe-esque spread.
The days work outing follows a sleepover the previous night at ex-girlfriend Samantha Ronsons house - leading to speculation that the twosome may get back together again.
An insider tells People magazine, Sam might eventually take Lindsay back It wouldnt surprise anyone. Its a cycle that can go on forever. Now that things have died down a little and Lindsay is behaving herself and showing Sam what she wants to see, Sams strength to stay away eases up.
And though LiLo and Sam are still keeping in touch, another source tells that a rekindled relationship is still up in the air, saying: Sam knows in her head, life is truly better off without Lindsay even if her heart sometimes says otherwise.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Carmen Electra's full-length dress (above) recently sparked pregnancy rumors.

Carmen and her fiancé, Rob Patterson, stopped by MGM Grand's Wet Republic at the in Las Vegas on Sunday to celebrate Carmen's 37th birthday and mark the return of Wet Republics "Daylife Sundays".

The pregnancy rumors came about because Carmen didn't don a bikini at the Wet Republic pools. No female celebrities who attends the opening of any Las Vegas hotel pools wear bikinis. Not Kim Kardashian, not Lauren Conrad. If the female celebs wore bikinis they would blend in with all the regular girls and it would look a bit tacky. Lets us know what people think of Carmen. She isn't Pamela Anderson. She doesn't go around making a fool of herself all the time.

With that said, I looked at some older pictures of Carmen and noticed the last time she wore a form fitting outfit was at the end of February of this year. It was when she hosted a show for The Chelsea Girls, the all blonde, all female cover band. But, Carmen just did a performance with the Pussycat Dolls on Dancing with the Stars on April 14th. Carmen showed her midriff. If a woman's in the early stages of pregnancy can her stomach pouf out quickly?

I'm going to say Carmen's not pregnant. I think she enjoys the freedom on her life too much. She's getting older and softening her image up a bit. Nothing wrong with that.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Just finished my second cup of well-made Darjeeling tea in my favourite white cup! Ah the small pleasures of life...Getting ready for a long day of book research and writing after a two week hiatus...

Had read this post by Scott Goodson, the Strawberry Frog CEO on the different agency models and the need for extreme agility and adaptability among agencies in times of recession/ slowdown. You can read it here...

It also got me thinking about the need to adapt as a worker-ant/ employee/ networked knowledge worker/ creative portfolio worker...Thots not exactly in order...

1. The department must die. I feel the rate of our contribution dramatically increases with our ability to collaborate across the blurring boundaries of department. I am talking strategy, creative, servicing, digital media, OOH, research, brand identity...Though there are no visible signs of 'the department' dying in an Indian agency any time in the near future. Long live the fiefdoms!!

2. Employee NetworksThe agile companies must respect, use and reward employee networks. At 437 LinkedIn connections, I am perhaps a little more useful than I was a year back:-)This is a social network. But it's also a knowledge and personal network that can do great stuff together, solve issues, share experiences. Suddenly, the sum of all these employee networks can become a potent force for the small agile company!

3. Portfolio Working. I had been wanting to do it ever since I first read about the concept in Charles Handys' book - the empty raincoat! As we increasingly get hurtled into the ever closely knit creative-knowledge economy, opportunities to do portfolio work(not just for pure creatives) but everyone has risen through the roof...

4. Make New ConnectionsWhile the economy has slowed down dramatically, the potential to make new business connections has never been greater.

Take 1 jar of open mindedness and enthusiasm + add a full saucer of environment scanning + heat it a little + shake it with new thinking + add 1 table spoon of new ideas and approaches and hey you have a new business idea or model or new portfolio friends...

eg. A specialised Bollywood/ A/V content Marketing Agency*, Youth Marketing Company, Personal Branding Consultancy, Low cost SOHO brand building packages(this one came as of yesterday as I was approached by a London based company for a guest blog post)

Gmail, LinkedIn, Skype ensure that this souffle comes for FREE!!

5. Re-skillingMost of us(all of us) sit on a few kilos of unused talent. A minor re-skilling can polish up those and can be gainfully employed in a portfolio way. In the past 3 months or so, at a personal level, I have discovered that I could be a trainer, executive coach, youth/ culture/ Bollywood film marketer...It's just that we sit on our asses waiting for things to happen(at least that was my case) Whereas the environment is right for re-skilling and creating new revenue models(both for the company and personal)...

6. The Un-Company ManWhen I was looking for a job two years back, a very senior media person(ality) said that I wasn't much of a company man(the spirit of the remark was a wee bit pejorative)...However, if we look at the debris of corporate America and the loss of jobs closer home, the company as the sole provider of financial security and stability no longer exists. It's both a scary and a liberating thought. In fact now may be the best time to finally come out of the life long shackles of the COMPANY.

The company will definitely exist; but that will no longer be the sole/ desired work model. Like I said, (a) portfolio working, (b) greater degree of employee entrepreneurship, (c) company as a employee collective, (d) virtual creative/knowledge worker networks and more are/ will emerge stronger...

I feel the time, the tools and the environment is just right to create the future the way we want it to be!.

Similar posts: fake celebs

This could be the biggest video sharing/ web 2.0 fail ever 
Remember the Susan Boyle I Dreamed a Dream video from Britains Got Talent; the one that you are sick to the back teeth of seeing and the one that was just parodied on South Park?
Well, by most measures, the clip has amassed an overall total of 100 million views and counting. Given that a good chunk of the video plays were from YouTube and the official BGT channel, you would have thought the two would have teamed up and invented some new and exciting ways to print their own money.
Only, according to Mashable, that is not the case. The official Susan Boyle video (which you can also see here) has made the the show and Tube $0 to date. Yep, nothing.
The fail to get stupidly rich comes as the two sides butt heads over precisely how ads could be served over the clip. Tube wants their usual crappy overlay thingys, that you can click off. ITV, who owns the show, wants pre-roll which are ads that play before the clip and are harder to ignore.
By some estimates, video of Boyle’s performance of “I Dreamed a Dream” on Britain’s Got Talent has already amassed more than 100 million video views, Britain’s ITV - who owns the rights to the show - and YouTube - where most of the views have taken place – have been unable to reach a revenue share deal, meaning no ads have been served, and more than a “million-pound windfall” has been missed.

The holdup is apparently over ad formats, as ITV wants pre-rolls and YouTube doesn’t. The Times of London quotes ITV’s director of online saying, “We don’t want to be part of YouTube’s standard terms and conditions, because content like Susan Boyle is unique … I think both sides are being hard-nosed and commercial about it.” YouTube, the article notes, prefers overlay and text ads, which have been increasingly showing up on videos around the site. (via the ever great Mashable)

The fight has dragged out for so long that is seems neither side has realised that virtually the entire profit potential of the clip is behind it. 
This is a pretty epic fail from two sides who should damn well know better.

Similar posts: fake celebs

This sophisticated line of swimwear features unique laces, distinctive embellishments and refined accessories. Many celebs like Nicole Richie and Ashlee Simpson are big fans of these demure swimsuits! 
 
Frans Bandeau Bikini:  This simple and classic two-piece suit, which comes in teal, zebra, pink, leopard, chocolate and black, is marked down 81%.  The bandeau top is connected with a gold center ring with a tie back and detachable halter strap to give it extra versatility.  This effortless look is completed with two large gold rings on the bikini bottom for a luxurious beach-going day.
 
Sophia Links Bikini:  This great piece is priced at $29.99.  The triangle top is connected in the front by two beautiful interlocked medallions.  The bikini bottom’s glossy sheen material is attached with gold chain links preserving the sexiness of the suit.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Police tossed flash/stun grenades into the home before entering it but they found no one inside.
Around 6:30 pm, a SUV unexpectedly pulled into the garage of the home and was quickly surrounded by SWAT members. Three women in the vehicle two older women and one in her twenties were taken away in squad cars. Police said no one was under arrest.
According to neighbors, the woman in her twenties is the owner of the BMW that was allegedly involved in the hit-and-run crash. One neighbor said she confronted the young woman last week after seeing a description of the car on the news. But the woman denied being involved in the accident. Police said there is evidence that the BMW had recently been repaired.
Robert and Delisia Carter; the couple’s newborn son, Ethan Blake; and Delisia Carter’s 9-year-old daughter, Kayla, died after the family’s Mercedes collided with the BMW on Camp Creek Parkway between Butner and Old Fairburn roads, resulting in a chain-reaction crash involving a Volkswagen.
The Volkswagen was driven by Tracy Johnson, 43, of Atlanta. Johnson survived the accident, but the impact killed her 6-year-old daughter, Morgan.

Similar posts: fake celebs

A Story About the The Shiekh’s Oil Agreement.
Hasan Yahya, Ph.D
After colonialism was defeated, and their power over the poor nations resources, they were smart though, but greedy to continue their powers or retain some of it. Poor people are naïve and still generous with simple mentality thinks how to bring daily food.  Colonialism began its strategies and tactics to keep the relationships with the poor but resourceful in some cases. Energy is acutely needed after WW1, ideas of colonialism came up with social but political factors such as education ties and diplomacy. The Muslim world as we said of the poor countries were naturally generous with their guests. That door of generosity was the key. When colonial powers in the name of multinational corporations negotiated oil, they used the factor of generosity. One of the oil area Shaikhs was visited to sign a deal with oil companies. This  was his story:
There was an Arab Sheikh in the Gulf wealthy area with oil: Two capitalists (British and American Oil negotiators) wanted to make an agreement with one of the Shiekh’s oil in the Gulf Area. (I will discard the role of translator here). In the way to meet His Highness, the Shiekh, the British envoy asked the American:
- “How much do you think we have to offer to the Shiekh for oil yearly?”
- “A good  deal is to offer a sum between 10 to 12 billions. I guess.” The American said:
-“No! I think this is too much!  we will offer him eight billions, if he rejected the offer, then we will increase it to10 billions if he disagree, up to 15 billion negotiation.  What do you think? They both agreed, so each will pay half of the amount. Both said in one voice, “So we will.” They arrived to his tent.
In the meeting with the Shiekh, he asked them not to talk until they have the Arab coffee. They did. Later, they offered him 8 billion for the oil every year. The sheikh paused in silence, the two envoy members (the capitalists) thought they did a mistake without intention, and may be they should begin with higher number than eight. they should offered ten billion as at first step. But the Shiekh looked at them, put his hand on his beard, seems to thinking deeply, then looked at the translator, and then talked:
- “Eight billions you said? Hmmm”.
The American said: “Yes your Highness. But we are ready to ………..,” the Shiekh, gave a sign with his hand to stop talking, then he said:
- “Eight billion! Hmmm! I think this is too much, we can’t handle this amount of money.” To their surprise he continued to say:
- “I will give you a generous  deal, I will take only five billions each year, and you both take the rest for you as a gift, but  with one condition.
The two envoy members were looking at each other, laughing deep with no sign, 
- “What’s that your Highness” One of the negotiators (the American) said: The sheikh with his hand and fingers made a sign, (the thump moving on other fingers of the same hand, showing them what he means):
-“Yes your highness, what does that mean?” The sheikh smiled and said:
“ I need cash ….cash money.” They two envoy members in their car were laughing the desert sand was annoyed of their loud voices. 
Now let me ask you: Is this an Arab generosity or what?  Arabs until now, they act in the same generosity, where their money in western banks, with one condition:  no interest collected. Because collected interest, is haram. (illegal) according to Islamic Shari’a. I wander why the American banks collapsed.
This anecdote was similar in one Shikh’s biography in the 1960s written by a westerner. The sheikh felt proud of himself as an Arab showing his generosity to his guests. My question more is: does this generosity continues until this day. I don’t know, this is a taboo question. But it  surely, still. 
Another story, but shorter, two years ago, an Arab  president  of one oil country talking about money, he was offered to pay 2.9 (two point nine) billion for compensation of the TWA victims. In his televised conference to his people, (I watched it on TV), he said:
“We will give the complete amount” then he continues to say: “What is the two billion in our budget?”
He did not recognize the 900 millions in the deal, because he did not grasp what the point 9 of a billion (.9 ) means. He discarded the amount of  .9 billion.  The money is not his anyway, it is generated from oil revenues.  This was another type of Arab generosity, what do you call that? If you say: Arab ignorasity? You may be right! Long live (almost all) Arab and Muslim Leaders. (839 words)
Hasan Yahya is a Professor of Sociology, He’s a columnist at wfol.tv, Malaysia, and TINA International News Agency, Michigan Branch, USA. www.hasanyahya.com
Dr. H. A. Yahya, a Professor of Sociology, Michigans State University. He authored over than 20 books and 120 plus articles.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Impressed by her hair and her involvement with the Kraut Rock fan club, bassist Karl Briedrick confesses he initially met vocalist and multi-instrumentalist Maire-Claire Balabanian on Facebook in 2005 while the two were both students at NYU, and it wasnt long before the two started playing music together. While the duos debut release, Summer Above, has more of an innocent vibe, their newest album, Some Sweet Relief is more textured and mysterious than its predecessor and begs to be unpacked.
source : www.npr.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Stevie Wonder is giving back in a major way this weekend !
Wonder, known for iconic hits including Signed, Sealed and Delivered,  will appear on this weeks episode of Extreme Makeover Home Edition on ABC !
An Emmy Award-winning program, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition aids a family that has faced some sort of recent or ongoing hardship – such as a natural disaster or a family member with a life-threatening illness. The shows producers coordinate with various companies in the building trades for a makeover of the familys home including interior, exterior and landscaping, which is performed in seven days while the family is on vacation. If the house is beyond repair, they replace it entirely EMHE often fulfills the dreams of children and adults effected by tragedy by bringing in celebrities, characters, political figures and others who are willing to make dreams come true.
Watch Stevie help a family in need Sunday at 7pm (check local listings)
By the way, Stevie Wonder will be performing a song during the episode .

Similar posts: fake celebs

Diamonds are the hardest element in this planet. This along with their great beauty has made diamonds one of the more costly luxuries on earth. Many people covet this precious gem and many opt to get a fake diamond due to financial restraints. There are many different kinds of fake diamonds. A fake diamond earring may be easy to spot, especially if this is made of glass or crystal. On the other hand, there are now many different advances in technology that has permitted the manufacture of a fake diamond which is not as easy to spot. This advancement makes the task to buy diamond earrings and other diamond jewelry difficult since there are unscrupulous people who wish to make a tidy profit with a fake diamond earring or ring.
Fake Diamonds
There are many other reasons to invest in a fake diamond. Many people use fake diamond earrings as costume jewelry. Costume jewelry is something that is totally outrageous sometimes when it comes to their design. A fake diamond earring can be as big as a robins egg or a modestly sized stud. The smaller the costume jewelry the easier it is to believe that it is not a fake. A fake diamond earring is easy to spot due to the inappropriateness of the size of the stone. Many people believe that the bigger the rock the more people think it is real but this is not true, especially when it comes to who is actually wearing the fake diamond earring. Celebrities can wear a fake diamond earring and still be bale to pull it off since many believe that he or she can afford the real thing.
Other people like to buy moissannite diamonds which are highly similar to real diamonds except fort he fact that these are made by man. These kinds of man made diamonds are difficult to differentiate from the real thing in the eyes of an inexperienced person. A fake diamond earring made of moissannite may have better qualities than the real thing. This is another aspect that may lend disbelief to the fake diamond earring. Manmade diamonds are practically perfect compared to the real thing. Most real diamonds have flaws in them.
It may be a good idea to invest in a fake diamond earring or ring just for daily use. This way it will not be as shocking to lose the fake jewelry compared to losing the real thing.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Over the years it has been quite a lucky race for me and well be looking to follow-up last years success of tipping the winner (Comply Or Die).
In an open looking race, I really cant fancy the current favourite My Will, nor Butlers Cabin (sorry AP), who might well end up favourite by the time the tapes go up on Saturday. Ive also put a line through other leading fancies State of Play, Black Apalachi and Rambling Minster.
So youre asking what do we fancy!
For what it is worth I expect David Pipes Comply Or Die to again run a big race and can see Timmy Murphys mount finishing in the first four. Ill have £10-each way at 16/1. Out of form so far this season, last years winner ran a very decent race last time out at Cheltenham and could be back to something like its best.
Next is LAmi, the Enda Bolger-trained raider will give followers a great run for their money. At 25/1 it is a great bet and with Robert Thornton in the saddle Ill have another £10 each-way. Despite falling in the race last year, a move to a new yard will give this 10-year-old a real squeak and expect a much better jumping performance.
Musica Bella is my final each-way choice in the Grand National. This nine-year-old French raider from the Francois-Marie Cottin yard could cause a shock at 100/1. Dont be surprised to be cheering on Phillip Carberry in the closing stages. The hugely under-estimated trainer-jockey combination have won Le Grand Steeplechase de Paris (at Auteuil) twice and might strike gold at Aintree at a huge price.
Good luck and enjoy the race and make sure you back your selection on Friday if possible, because the odds for most of the runners will shorten on Saturday morning.
Oranges Grand National preview

All-time record: Bets 101; Winners 30; Losers 70; Non-runners 1; Profit £822.93.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Last week I finished reading the last post of 8-part installment of “If it doesn’t spread, it’s dead”, (posted and written by Henry Jenkins, co-founder of the MIT Comparative Media Studies Program) discussing the misuse of the term “viral” media. The white paper is a lot to digest, but insightful and I have a background in philosophy so am generally a thinkerve been an analyst. Back to my point, the assertion is to be viral by nature assumes that the consumer is an unwilling host to media distributed by a “producer” (insert marketing rep here). Well when you put it that wayI think it highlights the industry’s reluctance to admit that we (a collective we) have lost power of the message. Let’s face it – we are not clever enough to throw this model of collective culture on its head, so why not continually reinforce terminology that inherently emphasises the producer but does not account for user motivations, so at least we can still sleep at night. NB please excuse if I continue to use the word VIRAL in my marketing efforts.I am not to this either.
But, the connected generation….they are clever. Not necessarily in a I-got-you sort of way, but in a I-see-through-you sort of way. They aren’t merely hosts to our subliminal messages, they choose to engage and spread the message when they see relevant. Good branded content is as good as good non-branded content. When content is revealed often the final message is not a positive one, it continues to spread but the message behind it has been distorted. As a brand manager we need to choose carefully what we want our lasting impression to be.
So fast forward all of this is tossing around in my head when today I got this Mini video from @JamesDuthie. There is a classic line in it, I get it, were in a viral. I love the openness and transparency of it. YES it’s fake, but who cares?! In fact the fact it is makes it more funny than if it were real. It is soooo 2008 to develop a fake, and while it’s only early 2009 that is how fast we are moving and must adapt. Lets not forget that from the beginning of internet-time the those who got it could always insert themselves into youth pop-culture by being real. As a general rule I don’t believe in hyping up controversy to sell brands – the phrase “any PR is good PR” is one of the worst things that happened to my industry, oh lets say ever. As professionals we need to further instill that there is very thin line, if one at all, between brand and corporate reputation.
In summary (love my summaries, dont I?) - what does this highlight to me? We (again that collective “we”) need to understand more the nature of social media and what makes our messages valuable and “spreadable” not viral, and this means owning up to the power shift the digital media has brought upon us. I thank Gen C for forcing this upon us and brining relationships back to the forefront of our communications mix.
That said, please enjoy the Mini video, courtesy of who other than BMW Mini.

Similar posts: fake celebs

Panda Security has revealed that cyber-criminals are manipulating search engine results to distribute malware, in particular, fake antivirus products.
‘The reasons for this is simple – the criminals need to attract users to malicious sites in order to infect them,’ says Jeremy Matthews, head of Panda’s sub-Saharan operations. ‘Whats new, however, is the inventive ways they are drawing users to these Web pages.’
In the past, users were lured to compromised websites by means of massive sending of spam. Targeted users read emails, clicked on the links they included and were unwittingly directed to a malicious Web page. Now, there’s a change in strategy: due to the fact that users are more wary of messages received from unknown senders, criminals are using more effective ways of ensnaring new victims. They are using a Google tool called Google Trends which, among other things, lists the most popular searches of the day – anything from Obama’s inaugural address to the Oscar nominations).
Once they know the top searches and hot topics of the day, they create a blog full of the most searched for words (e.g. Obama, Penelope Cruz etc.) and videos supposedly related to these topics. This way, they increase the blog’s ranking to place it among users’ first search results.
“Users who trust these results will end up on a Web page where they will be asked to download a codec or plug-in, etc. in order to watch the video. If they do so, they will be downloading malware – in most cases a fake antivirus,” explains Matthews.
Fake antiviruses try to pass themselves off as real antivirus products to convince targeted users they have been infected by malicious codes. Victims are then prompted to buy the rogue antivirus to remove these bogus infections. Cyber-crooks are currently profiting substantially from this type of fraud.
SEO techniques
This type of attack is benefiting from advanced SEO (Search Engine Optimization) techniques. These are legitimate Web programming techniques aimed at increasing the volume and quality of traffic to a website and improving its ranking in search engine results lists. This is the case of the webpage selling the Malwaredoctor fake antivirus, designed specifically to achieve a high ranking in search engines (for more info about this phenomenon click here).
In addition to standard SEO techniques, attackers are also using techniques known as Black Hat SEO, which could be described as illegal search engine positioning techniques used to by-pass search engine policies, present alternative content or affect the user’s experience. Occasionally, it can be difficult to determine which techniques are legitimate or not, as this can depend on the policies of the search engine.
Attack obfuscation
Attackers are always keen to make malicious site identification for anti-malware vendors harder.  In order to do this they are starting to use a more advanced way of launching these attacks. Some of the malicious pages they handle behave differently and show different content depending on the origin of the user that visits them.
In order to hide the attack, a script is inserted that determines the origin of the visitor. If a user types the URL they want to visit in the browser bar, the legitimate, correct content is displayed. However, if the user has come from a manipulated Google search, they will be taken to the malicious Web page.
MSAntispyware 2009: A different example
PandaLabs recently detected a Web page that appeared to establish a new model. While generally pages selling fake antiviruses either do not contain specific tags or those they contain are designed to improve indexing in search engines, the page from which MSAntispyware 2009 was distributed represented a significant change. Here, all the tags and processes were designed to prevent the page from being indexed in search engines.
The reason for this was to make it more difficult for malware analysts and security companies to prevent infections by techniques such as the blocking URLs through search engine queries with specific parameters.

Similar posts: fake celebs

At the time of this post, Twitter User ID @donaldtrump is not the real Donald Trump since their is 1) a lack of recent twitter traffic, 2) the bio links the "celebritytwitter.com" website which is associated with a number of fake celebrities on Twitter and 3) Donald Trump's celebrity status is used as a mechanism to lure you to the website. The site is in breach of the TOS of Twitter since cyber squatting is not permitted. The site should be removed from Twitter but remains despite repeated attempts by @fakecelebwatch to get it banned.

Donald Trump was born on June 14th, 1946 and is an American business magnate, tv personality and author. Trump is the Chairman and CEO of the Trump Organisation, a US-based real estate devloper. Trump is also the founder of Trump Entertainment Resorts, which operate casinos and hotel around the world. Trump's extravagant lifestyle has made him a celebrity for many years, the status magnified by the success of NBC reality show The Apprentice which he hosts.

Similar posts: fake celebs