June 2007 - cypherpunks-legacy

Melt away fat easily
by Abdul Gagne 20 Jun '07

20 Jun '07

Do not waste the opportunity! � Anatrim � The newest and most enchanting product for over-weight people is now readily available � As were told on Oprah Do you remember all the situations when you said to yourself you would do anything for being saved from this awful number of pounds? Happily, now no major offering is required. Thanks to Anatrim, the ground-shaking, you can achieve healthier mode of life and become really thinner. Take a look at what our clients say! �{an13} till last year my girl said to me I was stout and in extreme want of looking after my health. Life had abruptly changed after that, until I disclosed Anatrim � at once. Since loosing about 20 kilogrames thanx to Anatrim, my private life�s back on track, notoriously better than before even. A great deal of thanx for the awesome product & the first-class maintenance service. Keep up the valuable action!� Charley Mock, New York "Nothing to compare with slipping into a bikini I haven�t been dressed in for many long years. Now I feel lean, steadfast, and strong, thanx to a degree to Anatrim! Thanks so much!" Amelia B., Washington Check out Anatrim, and you'll add yourself to the world-spread association of thousands of pleased customers who are enjoying the revolutionary effects of Anatrim here and now. Less gobbling madness, less lbs and more gaiety in your life! Proceed right here to see invincible Anatrim arrangement we would like to so proud!!! http://www.promfore.com/?iulebepbnoys

1 0

Your Xan4x 0rder #255027
by Nona Zapata 20 Jun '07

20 Jun '07

We have everything you need: Phenterm1ne, Cial1s S0ft T4bs, V1agra S0ft T4bs, Cial1s, V1agra, Lev1tra, Propec1a, Val1um, Xan4x, Amb1en, Zyb4n, Atar4x, At1van, Car1soma, Ultr4m, Glucoph4ge, Lip1tor, Mer1dia, Zoc0r, N0rvasc. We respect your privacy - we guarantee you a total anonymity of your 0rder. Visit US He4lthc4re Inc. online at: http://www.adumilee.com/

1 0

Re: Your Xan4x 0rder #7054606
by Richie Mccollum 20 Jun '07

20 Jun '07

We have everything you need: Phenterm1ne, Cial1s S0ft T4bs, V1agra S0ft T4bs, Cial1s, V1agra, Lev1tra, Propec1a, Val1um, Xan4x, Amb1en, Zyb4n, Atar4x, At1van, Car1soma, Ultr4m, Glucoph4ge, Lip1tor, Mer1dia, Zoc0r, N0rvasc. We respect your privacy - we guarantee you a total anonymity of your 0rder. Visit US He4lthc4re Inc. online at: http://www.julikke.com/

1 0

Can you imagine that you are healthy?
by Glenn Banks 20 Jun '07

20 Jun '07

LegalRXMedications chemist's shop presents all preparations you feel need in in order to restore your health at low price. We operate around the world with clients from Europe, America and Asia. At present you got no need to seek out chemist's somewhere at your area. We deliver the best quality pills to all parts of the planet. Come please to our site & gain pharmas that you require instantly straight to your dwelling. http://worldtoward.hk/ Were confirmed by VISA & VeriSign then we provide secure and dependable purchasing.

1 0

Re: Your V1agra 0rder #16818
by Brianna Howard 20 Jun '07

20 Jun '07

We Present you a US Licensed Online Pharm4cy St0re. Huge Disc0unts for next five days!!! Phenterm1ne - as low as $6.30 Cial1s S0ft Tabs - as low as $7.30 Amb1en - as low as $3.60 V1agra S0ft Tabs - as low as $4.10 Val1um - as low as $3.30 Cial1s - as low as $6.00 Xan4x - as low as $3.80 Merid1a - as low as $4.40 We have lightspeed delivery and respect your privacy! Check US He4lthc4re Inc. at: http://www.pollikees.com/

1 0

Re: [FoRK] Re: [silk] The Demise Of The Dollar
by Eugen Leitl 20 Jun '07

20 Jun '07

----- Forwarded message from Adam L Beberg <beberg(a)mithral.com> -----

1 0

The best online drugstore.
by Shelia Spivey 20 Jun '07

20 Jun '07

1 0

EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 5.12, 20 June 2007
by Eugen Leitl 20 Jun '07

20 Jun '07

----- Forwarded message from EDRI-gram newsletter <edrigram(a)edri.org> -----

1 0

Search Engine Dispute Notification (Re: Weinstein, RISKS-24.72)
by Kirakowski, Jurek 20 Jun '07

20 Jun '07

To see if I understand Lauren Weinstein's premise correctly, let me give an example: my company has a web site [A] on which we advertise a particular product that we have created and sell. A competitor sets up a web site [B] hosted in some odd place which gets either more, or round about the same number of, hits on a search engine when someone seeks information on distinctive keywords to do with my site [A]. This competitor's web site [B] contains derogatory, possibly misleading, and certainly unflattering information about my company and its product. It may even pretend to be my company and might sell a similar product or a clone of mine. Search engines will as search engines do and [A] and [B] are likely to come close in keyword searches because that is the skill of [B] to be able to second-guess the algorithms. Getting court orders against [B] will take ages, and may not be effective. Lauren proposes that a 'dispute register' be set up in which [A] can register that [B] and [A] are in dispute about content. The entry in the register can't afford to make veracity claims or to take sides. It can only note that there is a dispute between [A] and [B], which dispute has been notified to the register by either owners of [A], [B] or both. If there is an attempt by the register to make veracity claims, then a clever faker of site [B] could tie up a process indefinitely with specious arguments (and oh boy, have we all heard some lulus!) The best way for the register to work is that if a searcher finds either [A] or [B] they will also be given a link to the entry in the register. However, if the searcher has to go to a special list at, say, disputes.org then if I were [B] I would certainly want to draw the searcher's attention to the entry in this list and rely on my ability to scam. If I were [A] it would not matter: someone has already found my site [A] and I would either warn the searcher of counterfeit sites, or present my information in such a way that it would be convincing. Either way, this makes the job of [B] even easier. All [B] has to do now is to set up a bogus site, never mind the keywords or any expertise in getting noticed by a search engine. Having set up his misleading site, he then notifies the register that [A] and [B] are in dispute as if he were the aggrieved party. And so even if it works for a small percentage of searchers, [B] has made his hit. The only real cure is web savvy and siting oneself within web communities. It may take a while for this to sink in (how many people STILL get caught in 'Lotto' scams?), but on the web where there is a lot of free information the seeker should understand that the rule CAVEAT EMPTOR applies. Let the buyer beware. My best defence as [A] is as follows: I contact sites which reference mine [C], [D]... and ask them to put a note next to their listing of [A] saying something to the effect that the reader should be aware that bogus sites have appeared (not giving their URLs!) A person browsing for the distinctive keywords of my site will likely find mention of my site on other sites indexed by the same keywords [C], [D]... and will find this information. This is not a route available to the bogus site owner [B] who does not have the same peer network as I do. It will be in the best interests of [C], [D]... to assist me in this as they themselves may one day come under attack in this way. If someone browses using the distinctive keywords they will get [A], [B], [C], [D]... and will see that there is a problem between [A] and [B]. I offer this more in the spirit of a 'straw man' since there must be an obvious rejoinder which unfortunately this morning I just can't see. ------------------------------

1 0

Search Engine Dispute Notification (Re: Weinstein, RISKS-24.72)
by Kirakowski, Jurek 20 Jun '07

20 Jun '07

To see if I understand Lauren Weinstein's premise correctly, let me give an example: my company has a web site [A] on which we advertise a particular product that we have created and sell. A competitor sets up a web site [B] hosted in some odd place which gets either more, or round about the same number of, hits on a search engine when someone seeks information on distinctive keywords to do with my site [A]. This competitor's web site [B] contains derogatory, possibly misleading, and certainly unflattering information about my company and its product. It may even pretend to be my company and might sell a similar product or a clone of mine. Search engines will as search engines do and [A] and [B] are likely to come close in keyword searches because that is the skill of [B] to be able to second-guess the algorithms. Getting court orders against [B] will take ages, and may not be effective. Lauren proposes that a 'dispute register' be set up in which [A] can register that [B] and [A] are in dispute about content. The entry in the register can't afford to make veracity claims or to take sides. It can only note that there is a dispute between [A] and [B], which dispute has been notified to the register by either owners of [A], [B] or both. If there is an attempt by the register to make veracity claims, then a clever faker of site [B] could tie up a process indefinitely with specious arguments (and oh boy, have we all heard some lulus!) The best way for the register to work is that if a searcher finds either [A] or [B] they will also be given a link to the entry in the register. However, if the searcher has to go to a special list at, say, disputes.org then if I were [B] I would certainly want to draw the searcher's attention to the entry in this list and rely on my ability to scam. If I were [A] it would not matter: someone has already found my site [A] and I would either warn the searcher of counterfeit sites, or present my information in such a way that it would be convincing. Either way, this makes the job of [B] even easier. All [B] has to do now is to set up a bogus site, never mind the keywords or any expertise in getting noticed by a search engine. Having set up his misleading site, he then notifies the register that [A] and [B] are in dispute as if he were the aggrieved party. And so even if it works for a small percentage of searchers, [B] has made his hit. The only real cure is web savvy and siting oneself within web communities. It may take a while for this to sink in (how many people STILL get caught in 'Lotto' scams?), but on the web where there is a lot of free information the seeker should understand that the rule CAVEAT EMPTOR applies. Let the buyer beware. My best defence as [A] is as follows: I contact sites which reference mine [C], [D]... and ask them to put a note next to their listing of [A] saying something to the effect that the reader should be aware that bogus sites have appeared (not giving their URLs!) A person browsing for the distinctive keywords of my site will likely find mention of my site on other sites indexed by the same keywords [C], [D]... and will find this information. This is not a route available to the bogus site owner [B] who does not have the same peer network as I do. It will be in the best interests of [C], [D]... to assist me in this as they themselves may one day come under attack in this way. If someone browses using the distinctive keywords they will get [A], [B], [C], [D]... and will see that there is a problem between [A] and [B]. I offer this more in the spirit of a 'straw man' since there must be an obvious rejoinder which unfortunately this morning I just can't see. ------------------------------

1 0