Archive for Business

The World Today

The world today is in an interesting state, I’m not sure if i’m looking forward to what might be on it’s way, but at the same time I believe that human beings in themselves are a catalyst for the planet. Speeding up processes (often of damage) that would take otherwise countless years.

The World Today

I’ve decided to start posting again on the azio.org blog. Last year a business was stolen from me, and I  also lost the love of my life which was a very painful process.

I’ve decided though, back to modern sociopolitical issues , Linux based Open Source works, and lots of projects based on the unusual and interesting.

Real geek stuff basically. I’d just like to thank all the people who enjoy reading azio.org and all the tidbits of info on here.

Comments (5)

Facebook Fraud on the Rise!

In recent months, the economic downturn has been something nearby everyones ear, be it radio, TV, word of mouth, or otherwise. It seems though that the scams will continue and for quite some time during the credit crunch.

Helping criminal fraudsters since the economic downturn

We ask ourselves in wonder, and quickly state “Facebook? Fraud? No, no, no. They have safeguards and vetting for such ads”. You’d be correct, but for some reason Facebook are quite happy letting countless hundreds of fraudsters access 15.4 million people per ad.  This is clearly unnacceptable and presents yet again another dangerous trend in irresponsible business practices online.

Now, as we know the CMA (Computer Misuse Act) is a internationally widely misunderstood and misinterpreted legislation, and often revised to meet a changing need of regulations to prevent both criminal and civil crimes being committed with the use of computer and internet technology. There has always been a grey area in which fraudsters are able to hide and operate almost entirely with impunity.  Frankly though, we feel a public outcry is the only response deserved for Facebook profiteering from fraudsters. A symbiosis of association is quite illegal, with or without knowledge (criminal). I believe a strong case can and will be put forward by myself or some other party to ensure that such phenomena cannot repeat itself.

Facebook clearly state they have a filtering/vetting system. Perhaps they could state why they are allowing organised crime to be advertised on their site to their users? See how much facebook cares about their users? Only as much as the monetization, it seems, it’s not cheap to run facebook. Infact when talking about facebook user ROI they will refer to it in pence.. however the real cost to us from fraudsters can reach the hundreds of thousands. Obviously customer value and monetization are clearly mutually exclusive goals. Something of which either requires massive addressing via the CMA, or other currently existing legislations to remove organised crime by association.

A dangerous criminal-commercial symbiosis has formed where commercial entities are prepared to turn a blind eye to clearly illegal pyramid or matrix schemes. Often refered to as scams!

Often in such schemes the scammer will have a website that noticeably has no Google Index, Alexa Rank, backlinks, yahoo rank, msn rank. Infact I and others could go as far to blame the user for being soppy and not checking such blisteringly obvious things. Question though, how mainstream is facebook? How many people on facebook are technicians? It’s a good question, and quickly explains the Beeb’s recent interest in the story about rising frauds related crime since the economic downturn. Also, often the scammer will insist he had recently no options left, no job or promise of success and that *his* scheme, for instance “Gmoney” or “google money” works and generates thousands of $. Also a “free” pack will be offered, always requiring the user to give their creditcard details or a monetary payment of somekind for the “postage”. Often the user may be charged more than the postage list price quoted by said scammer. More often than not that money is lost due to the embarassment of being had, or rather simply because they were desperate and spent their last crumbs on something silly, and have better things to do than trying to get a few dollar, or a few hundred dollars back.

First of all it should be clear that people who use terms like “google will make you money” is pretty disassociative, they are clearly stepping back and saying - “hey google will make you rich” but giving you a clear impression it’s their work, and their “book/starter kit” will tell you everything you need to know to make money on google. Well here’s the wakeup call. Google will tell you everything you need how to make money on google, because they did it first! It’s everywhere: strategies, tutorials, guides, SEO, this stuff already exists, it’s free! And not everyone makes money on it AT ALL. Success ISN’T assured! Losing ones money usually is, especially in matrix schemes. Moreso in Pyramid schemes, and an outright guarantee from someone claiming you can make a personal fortune via google with their help!! Lies, and the same old stories resurface every few years in mainstream media, for instance recently with the economic downturn.

Another great prank is pictures of fancy cars, beautiful women, their children and them, pretending to be a single father/mother. Remeber, scammers are experts in human psychology , social networking, espionate and

Promises that are too good to be true are what they say on the tin.

It’s easy to become involved in one of these schemes, the specific rise and targeting of facebook since the downturn can simply be labeled as a fraudsters exploitation, but how far does the exclusivity of that exploitation go? How far do the responsibilities of the content provider go as to crime? Actually, facebook could indeed be responsible for allowing criminals to use their content for ads network. Google have faced similar suits where their responsibility to patents, trademarks or misleading/fraudulent adverts as well as their users have been instilled by international courts. Facebook is still pretty fresh so it will be interesting to see how badly they are hit with the bad news they’ve been caught red handed, with their pants down, allowing criminal fraudsters to impress upon their entire userbase… if this is not a crime then it can only be pure and simple ignorance, stupidity and/or greed.

Facebook wake up! For gods sake! For your users sake!

One such Ad on facebook today:

The scammer href/link for the facebook ad:

Comments (1)

Privacy? What Privacy! The Illusion of Justification or Idealism?

Introduction

Having lived in Britain my whole life and aspired to live as a thinker, philosophiser, technician, developer, manager, project manager, liason, scientist, spiritualist, conspiracist and contrived myself towards a more `new age` look at modern sociopolitical concepts I have found myself uncovering remarkable tidbits of concept, ideas and political flim flam.

Privacy Central and the Anonymous World
For instance, under both US and EU law a common statute of privacy is established for the individual, however contrarily the modern development of computer tagging systems, highly sophisticated imaging systems, Retina scanners, genetic profiling, detailed census profiling (e.g. compulsory personal US census programme), search engines, and most importantly service based interconnectivity leave much to be admired. Being anonymous is a practical impossibility, for the average human being and the over-average cracker genius. Why we ask? Well, the way the internet works, and the way people get it, and specifically, the interdependance of intercommunications. Some may say “what say you azio?” - “what does that even mean?” - it goes, well, something like this. You get your internet through an ISP, and they most likely get their global internet coverage (known as partial or global routes in a route table for differing allocations of the internet) via someone else (or many groups or exchanges). Of course we have all seen films that make melodrama of the idea and make it look like simplicity, it really isn’t simple. We need to consider that no one business or government owns the `internet`, owns the fibre or phonelines laid in your street; but, we all have an interdependancy on those systems, and their respective dependant systems. Security and privacy wise this says “DANGER” and nothing less. This says no privacy.

A work that is in progress

Although my research still bears the label of an `early work` having worked with basic routing, switching, and along with other commercial ISP’s it became a quick lesson that there is, at nearly all times for a extraordinarily large amount of people - more than just the lack of privacy - but a system that independantly or collectively monitors user patterns and activity. So much so that, using a HTTP proxy is no longer safe, so much so that using even a remote dns server _SELF OWNED_ by yourself still permits a security risk. “Why?” the reader asks. I answer, because that is the nature of the internet. It is a particularly erroneous claim (and idea) that seems to have been *HIGHLY* circulated in recent and older times, the internet is anonymous. Facts say something totally different, the internet is _NOT_ anonymous, whatsoever. Infact the whole system of DNS and IP/MAC translation allows the ability for specific tracking of the majority of users. All IP (Internet-Protocol) addresses ipv4 of ipv6 are binded to unique MACID’s in hardware NIC’s (Network Interface Cards), wireless cards - even telephone systems and a multitude of other devices. A specific unique identifier for communication, of course, and uniquely the best, most expert way to track anyone, anywhere in the world. So much so that MACID’s can be traced to Credit Cards, which can be traced to people, which can be traced to their bank, their business, their family, friends and their Internet Service Provider.

Expression is pointless in an anonymous society?


Freedom
, Privacy and the Data Protection Act
The whole idea of the all seeing eye of Echelon (An unacknowledged system which makes attempts at monitoring all intercommunication systems such as satellite, radiowave, microwave, optical, bnc and hardwire communications - is not a new concept. However, the idea of the internet being wholely un-anonymous and modern systems being actively in breach of peoples basic human rights and the DPA is a new idea; an idea based solely on the assumption of misuse of data, or rather, isolation and review of sensitive and private data without due cause OR the specific ignorance of laws protecting peoples right to privacy. Those who find themselves living in the US should know privacy is not something to reject, it is a right that has been granted to their society by constitutional law, it is just and it should not be unreasonable to expect a system of technology that respects it, however - as a technician it is important to establish that the way computer systems work is on a “unique identifier” basis - otherwise the system can’t do anything. All communication systems need to know their destination, and specifically where they are coming from - so the target can reply. All communication systems route through a multitude of machines. The atypical illusion of the `common user` of P2P connections (point to point) is ridiculous, as quite clearly the data to reach that target (and indeed acknowledgement from target to the initial user source) is a neccesity for data transmission, as such, any use of technology systems - at least to an insanely high majority of people (estimated 99.99% of people) is anything but anonymous.
the way computer systems work is on a "unique identifier" basis


A little bit about the fallacical system of Privacy

Often, in law enforcement, and other security vendors - specifically airports, high security locations, music and dance venue’s, clubs, even your local stores the philosophy of “refusal to submit is admission of guilt” is considered a golden neccesity of operation. I ask “Why?”. I ask “Why?” people must be guilty to value their privacy. For instance, I would feel embarassed and personal intruded if a crowd of people watched as I showered, some wouldn’t , but some would. That is human nature, we are indeed all different. Let’s get back to the topic at hand, the fallacical idea of the system of fallacical security with an example:

Security Guard: Hello sir, I have been informed by a member of staff that you have been acting suspiciously, would you mind if I went through your back and personal items briefly.
Civilian: Yes I would mind, as that is private!
Security Guard: Sir, if you would kindly consent to me searching you for weapons, stolen items, etc then you will be able to go on your way as soon as we have established that you are innocent.
Civilian: I am innocent, however invading my privacy is not your right.
Security Guard: So you refuse to consent to being searched sir?
Civlian: Yes, Yes I do.
Security Guard:
Civilian:
Security Guard: Why disallow me to search through your posessions if you have nothing to hide?
Civilian: I have nothing to hide but my personal privacy and personal items, which I have already said.
Security Guard: Yes, but everyone else has to be searched, you are not an exception to this rule, it is for the security of you and others, and your freedom.
Civilian: My freedom is my privacy.
Security Guard: Perhaps, but refusal to consent to being searched suggests guilt, wheras compliance suggets innocence.

Such situations are of course very common, and such people to challenge the system in such a way are very uncommon. Compliance is not an option in most usual circumstances. In society a “reality” of importance is established and a double standard is born people at airports may be subjected to searches in the UK, those who value their freedom (and indeed, privacy) are persecuted and accused of guilt when they excercise the same rights that security forces claim to protect.
The substitution of freedom for security to protect freedoms deserve nor attain either.
This is not an old idea, of course, but it is a new perspective of the marvels that books like 1984 by George Orwell initiated, predicted and confounded. 1984, written in 1948 and published in 1949 talk about the “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU” an idea that lives on in our hearts and minds forevermore, and will continue to do so due to the potent threat of Unique Identification systems.

The fallacical idea of injustice, or assured guilt is predefined and primal in those who value their privacy (or even those who desire privacy and agree to adhere to stringent security guidelines) - guilt is assured to all people who value freedom in this way. Refusal to consent to the removal of basic rights of privacy is considered admission of guilt and can lead to further sanctioning as much as agreeing to consent to the removal of their rights, either way freedom is lost - a soul guarantor of a system of fallacical justice.

Below is a furthering of the original idea of removal of privacy by force or otherwise. The below example is presented as an indicator to the system of justice, rather than an argument against or for removal of the nature of the justice, punishment and trialing system.

A brief hypothetical Example of Fallacical Justice:
Example 1

Judge: If you are not guilty you will submit to stringent testing, searching, etc
Civilian: No I won’t submit
Judge: then you must be guilty as if you had nothing to hide you would submit


Example 2

Judge: If you are not guilty you will submit to stringent testing, searching, etc,
Civilian: I will submit.

The Certainty of Judgement
In a modern system of commercial business tracked by software management systems and intercommunication networks there is an insideous movement towards guilt before innocence. A precident that has recently been strengthened by the concept of the “War on Terror”, and the unquenchable need to substitute freedom with security in order to protect it. As a young adult I could only compare it to the actions of a spoilt child whom when finding out he cannot keep his freedom to himself and just himself, destroys it so that others may not enjoy it.

“Let us feel no guilt from the stigma that excercising freedoms of privacy are admissions to it”

Beyond the sociopolitical ideaology, the illusion of perfect society, I find myself confounded by an illusion of the perfect system of reality management. I find myself answering the advocates of the reality system with tips and truisms from the system of idealism; idealism, I would argue is as much as an illusion as the system of reality. i.e. the system of reality uses justifications such as “you must be guilty because you refuse to be searched” - “this patient is beyond help and we cannot justify keeping him on life support”. Such bold and judgemental statements made in the interest of reality and the “life isn’t fair” philosophy are mainly ignorant of the total fallacical illusion of the concept of justification. As an advocate and admirer of the system of idealism as demonstrated in my articles, I would now be forced to argue that
the mockery and “conspiracist nonsense” spoken towards idealist concepts is a result of a society too used to inhabiting a social system based on a nonsensical & unreal system of justification; an illusion more fallacical, judgemental and unwise than the dream of idealist concepts - and most certainly, at least - as dangerous.

References:
1984 by George Orwell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Data Protection Act UK http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980029_en_1

United States Consitution 3rd ammendment right to privacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

“Freedom is an illusion created by those with power, for those without” - M. Jacques
“Expression is meaningless in an anonymous society” - M. Jacques

Comments

Notice of Evangelical Eviction , science or religion

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” — Albert Einstein

Some quotes reach us in a great wind, others in the synchronicity of science and modern sociopolitical values, others appear to masquerade as if from nothing, ever present and ever wise.

This notice serves as a warning to anyone who thinks he knows either truth or knowledge paramount; for those who say they do wield a dangerous and harrowing force to themselves and those who would surround them.

This can apply to many works and ideas. Thankyou Einstein, for a more restful day than usual!!

Comments

McAfee admits to direct copyright infringement and breaking GPL license openly - shock.

this story surprised me personally, and it will just go, and continue to, show that people really are mindless to the fact that the M$ slaves have more money, more resources and generally, could get away with murder - at least - if it was in a contract :D Original Article Source: Inquirer - check it out it’s a good read.

McAfee throws some FUD at the GPL

Comment Hits its own investors’ confidence

SATURDAY the sky was a sullen violet overcast at dawn, spitting volleys of rain onto the patio roof. Intermittant wind gusts ruffled the laurel hedge out back and swayed the limbs of the big fir tree in the neighbor’s back yard. A few of the cats ventured out but soon retreated back indoors to get out of the cold winter storm that had swept up the Pacific coast from San Francisco overnight.

In the chill morning dark, quiet except for the sounds of wind and rain outside, it seemed only fitting to happen upon the news of yet more FUD manure thrown at open source software by a vassal of the Volish empire, against its own interests.

* * *

In its annual report, Windows security software vendor McAfee told its investors that open source software licence terms it vaguely characterised as ” ambiguous” might “result in unanticipated obligations regarding our products.”

“To the extent that we use ‘open source’ software, we face risks,” McAfee stated.

McAfee explained: “Use of GPL software could subject certain portions of our proprietary software to the GPL requirements, which may have adverse effects on our sales of the products incorporating any such software.”

That statement says several things. First, it reveals that McAfee does use at least some open source software derived code in its products. Second, it betrays that McAfee has misappropriated that open source software and thus is committing copyright infringement, because it doesn’t distribute that open source software derivative source code. Third, by calling its products that include open source software code “proprietary”, McAfee shows that it really doesn’t want to shoulder its GPL licence obligations, but instead wants to both have its cake and eat it too.

The company might have more honestly admitted that, to the extent it might have been abusing open source software by ignoring its licence requirements, it might have to distribute its modified open source software source code to its customers, or at least make it easily available to any customers who might want to obtain it.

That is all that the GPL requires. It explicitly permits that products that use GPL licenced software may be sold, subject only to the requirement that the source code to components that are GPL licenced must be distributed or made available.

Merely including both proprietary and open source software in the same package or on the same distribution media doesn’t transfer GPL requirements from open source components to proprietary components. McAfee ought to consult with the Free Software Foundation if its management and attorneys are not well versed in the accepted methods for keeping proprietary and open source software separate while still allowing them to work together. The FSF will be glad to help them out.

Even if it were to publish all of the source code for, let’s say, its antivirus product, McAfee would certainly be able to keep its virus signatures database proprietary and confidential. That’s data not code, so it couldn’t be subject to GPL disclosure. McAfee’s antivirus product’s marketability wouldn’t be diminished in the least and end-users would still need update subscriptions even if they had the software free.

After all, the long term end-user value of any antivirus product is in the ongoing malware detection and research performed by the vendor, not in the executable module scanning and signature database matching software machinery by itself.

Of course, McAfee might simply be mortified at the thought of having competent customer programmers viewing its software source code. That might be poorly designed and structured, embarrassingly kludgey, or riddled with clumsy coding, and so on. It might even have glaring design loopholes that could be exploited by malware authors if they became widely known. Then again, one doesn’t really need source code to find design flaws, given some sophisticated debugging tools.

Perhaps McAfee believes in “security by obscurity” and that’s the reason it doesn’t want to reveal its modified open source code. But it, and all of the other Windows security software vendors, should know better. After all, that’s been Microsoft’s approach within Windows itself, and it’s been proven to be totally ineffective. The Windows security software vendors only have demand for their products because the Vole’s whole “security by obscurity” approach has failed and continues to fail.

Besides, properly designed security software can’t be defeated simply by knowing exactly how it works. Well designed security routines have checks that malware code can neither satisfy nor avoid, authorisation tests it can’t pass, and function, memory and file protections it can’t evade to reach sensitive resources, and so on. There’s exemplary open source software that is quite highly secure despite being entirely open for anyone to read. OpenBSD is only one example of several.

However, even if one or more of these is the case, that doesn’t excuse continuing GPL violations. The only possible GPL violation cures are to either distribute the derivative open source code or recode the functions in a clean room environment. That, or completely redesign and rewrite the application… entirely from scratch.

If McAfee didn’t like the GPL or want to abide by its licence terms, it should have written its own blasted software rather than stealing code from the open source community in violation of the GPL and the US Copyright Act. It’s far too late now.

There’s nothing at all “ambiguous” about the terms of the GPL, either. Contrary to McAfee’s snide, scurrilous suggestion, the GPL is a simple, straightforward software licence with no confusing or onerous terms. Compared to the McAfee EULA — or especially a Microsoft EULA — the GPL is a veritable model of simple software licence clarity.

McAfee also feigned to be “troubled” that the terms of the GPL have never been tested in court, supposedly. Well, that’s simply false. The GPL has been upheld in a German court of law, under the Berne Convention that conformed international copyright protection, to which the US is a signatory since 1988, and which is now under the auspices of the UN World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).

The only reason that the GPL has never been “tested” in a US court of law is that every potential defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit based upon the GPL has chosen to settle out of court rather than risk losing in court.

The US Copyright Act provides for statutory damages of up to $180,000 for each and every instance of willful copyright infringement.

Before it further disparages the GPL, McAfee should contemplate paying multiple authors of open source software licenced under the GPL $180,000 for each copy of its unlicenced and therefore copyright infringing products it ever shipped. One suspects that not even Microsoft has that much money, and certainly not McAfee.

Also, how can McAfee pretend that the redistribution obligations relating to open source software that are so clearly stated in the GPL were “unanticipated” by it?

That claim is tantamount to the admission that McAfee had previously assumed that it could get away with violating the GPL with impunity. Either that, or it’s an admission by McAfee’s executive management of their utterly gross incompetence at directing and managing a legally responsible software development enterprise.

These few statements in its annual report, taken at face value, can’t be viewed as encouraging for investor confidence in McAfee’s executive management team or future business prospects. Indeed, should McAfee’s stock decline in market value, it’s not unimaginable that these statements could come to be cited as evidence of mismanagement in stockholder lawsuits. Under Sarbanes-Oxley, executives might even be held personally liable for causing the corporation to incur legal liabilities. Having disclosed bad management after the fact might not get them off the hook.

On the other hand, open source software developers whose source code McAfee might have misappropriated aren’t likely to sue the company for damages. That’s not the point of the GPL, which merely requires that those developers who modify and redistribute open source software also return those derivative works into the open source software development community. GPL compliance is the objective, not monetary gain, and fortunately for all, compliance is almost always possible.

But McAfee probably knows all of this. So what was the point of the FUD attack?

One can only speculate, but it’s obvious that all of the Windows security software vendors like McAfee are totally dependent upon Microsoft’s dominant Windows OS marketshare for their very existence. Apple Mac and Linux systems aren’t nearly as vulnerable to malware as Windows, which by its very design practically invites infestations of all sorts, the whole menagerie — viruses, adware, spyware, trojans, worms and bots. Without the Vole’s Windows monopoly to provide their customer base, parasitic Windows security vendors like McAfee could not stay in business long. There’s a powerful motive for McAfee to denigrate open source.

Linux users don’t buy antivirus software because Linux isn’t anywhere nearly as insecure as Windows, by orders of magnitude. It just isn’t needed to run Linux.

Perhaps McAfee is afraid that Linux desktop penetration is heading up, which it is, and wants to do whatever it can to slow its takeup, especially in corporations.

That does seem possible, even plausible, but if that’s the case, McAfee is failing to appreciate the direction from which the worst threat to its future viability is most likely to come. Growing uptake of desktop Linux won’t kill off McAfee’s business.

Long before Linux makes big inroads on the desktop, Microsoft will have escaped from federal antitrust oversight. Then the Vole will bundle security functions into Windows and staff its own malware research lab, putting McAfee out of business.

Or perhaps McAfee will offer software that does something actually productive, instead of living as a mere parasite of the Vole, a remora on the Windows shark.

* * *

It’s later Saturday morning and the wind’s died down. The cats are sauntering out again to patrol the soggy grounds under a bright grey, featureless overcast sky. µ

Original Article Source: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/01/05/mcafee-throws-fud-gpl

Comments (3)

Welp.co.uk Consultancy to be launched

In my short time working in IS and IT I have learnt a multitude of skills and sins; Habbits and Harassments. Good lessons and ones I would rather never have benefited from! You know the ones I mean!

I am happy to announce that I am working on a very-much lucrative consultation firm that should be providing the very greatest expectations of a modern IS customer. From small basement software development firms to Large multinational multi-million corporate framework, Server Management and Internet Service Provision.

It’s nice to finally be on the way to working on yet another type of ISP. There are a number of people involved and there will be an extremely *broad* range of services once it is launched. I’m delighted with the website we have chosen, Welp.co.uk servers. I have valued this domain at approx £10k but it is probably worth significantly more than that.

Wish me luck readers! This is the `business` and we will all be going for it!! A big thanks to the kind people that have helped me get where I have over the years. A lot of you are businesses I have worked with, providers, agents & of course loyal customers, friends and mentors! Thankyou. I’d never have got this far without you, and I won’t be the sort of guy to forget that.

Comments

Azio

Hello all! I am azio, for those who don’t know me already I am a 23 year old consultant, developer, technician and have been enjoying the computer generation since the 8086 AT and some will (quite correctly) correct me, the proper term is 8206 AT and it was this model to be the very first IBM compatible personal computer to be made and available in a commercial format.

Since Norton Commander and monochrome gempaint Desktop Publishing apps; much for me, has changed. Specifically the internet, networking, Linux and specifically webservers, kernels, and computer game servers. I have been involved in the online entertainment (gaming) industry for about 3 years now. I have gone from running my own single rig or two to maintaining a fully functional CISCO network comprising over multiple racks. Again, much has changed for me. I think there is still a long way to go in my career. Azio.org is my personal site, where I express my personal feelings, todays rant (or even yesterdays!) and a place for the disgusting and the geeky.

Since my entry into the online entertainment business I have been responsible for the general maintenance of the Game-Zero Network, machines (specs/builds/OS/maintenance) aswell as the development of the game-zero website, sales and billing system. A lot of work, but we are *really* getting there. I am happy with a lot of my achievements. Getting to work with top gaming organisations such as Zboard, Counter Strike Armageddon, The Last Resort (TLR), infused-gaming, Team Cooler-Master, The French (and most loyal) Team Supremz, dTekt, EdgeGaming, Auxilia, TradeMark Gamers, and many many other well known UK teams. It really has been a pleasure and I hope to take away my experiences and ideas from working in this industry and take certain interesting and otherwise surprising results & lessons I have learnt towards a consulting career.

My first skill was music and I have been playing for almost 20 years now.. (Since I was 6). I consider it my passion, love & joy, and I would almost certainly be doing it now if other prospects weren’t so close. I write all my own music ( can’t sight read because of a rare eye condition + dyslexia), can compose at and beyond concert level (hell, I wish any competant music could find work!! really I do!!) and can write music “as I go along”. If only coding was that easy, unfortunately I have not been coding or scripting that long!

I hope that you enjoy reading my blog and that I might be able to share with you something special. It’s what I’m looking for day and night, inspiration - something special. Thanks for reading,

I’d like to thank my thousands of visitors for dropping by, regular, new or otherwise :) Thanks for popping over, you have reached a geek-esque blog, with a lot of very strange, cunning & disgusting ideas.

Yours Faithfully,
Azio
azio.org owner

Comments

Online Fakers Alert

Well, to a few of your experiened online people - this’ll seem like common practice. To a vast majority of you this’ll seem like the usual thing you see on the news of a 70 yr old man falling in love with a 20yr old etc. etc. It’s all about lies and deceipt and darnright ignorance on everyones behalf - but what can you do? It’s the internet right?

Well, actually theres lots you can do to tell if someone is lying to you. I myself have been online for a long time, and much like there is something in britain called the “policemans nose” there is something called the “geeks nose” - we just know when something isn’t quite right. It could be their typing, their level of intellect, their mannerism’s, their domain name, email.. there are so many clues guys.

As people are getting smarter and more experienced with computers, tools and online streetsmartedness its everyones job to be more vigilant now.

I’m on a popular webmasters forum that I will not name - there is an “edrama” there every few days/weeks/month’s because of some moron pretending to be someone who he isn’t. That is, someone pretending to be working for a top500 website in the world (an adult entertainment site might I add). People should know firstly, this is commonplace and it’s likely a few of you have already been cleaned out by people like this. A lot of the webmasters refer to these people as “cheaters”. You can spot a cheat, there’s lots of signs, trust me. The cheaters should know that the adult entertainment industry is somewhat mafia run and fucking with these sort of people is not a smart idea.

It’s interesting to see that it still continues and a lot of sad, moronic people mess up their chances of becoming a decent webmaster with some decent contacts by simply, lying out of their bum bum! It’s a shame as these people might actually be a useful addition to the webmaster workforce, however in retrospect, i’m glad these guys get caught and punished in the way that they do - I’d rather not be in business with cheaters or affiliated with, in any way. So in some respects I/we should stop moaning as the signs are there, and we can be easily protected from these sorts of peoples.

We all need to be more vigilant in our online activities, even professionals. Cheating seems to be at an all time high - and as more and more people join the internet, the average IQ online is sure to drop.

If your a cheater and are reading this, why not consider doing yourself a favour and choosing something a bit more long term, a lot less stressful and if none of the above - get yourself some morals you fucking unscrupilous bastard!
haha.

Peace,
A

Comments

Policy, Policy, Policy, the illegal immorality of store searching!

What? You don’t want to be searched? Your a criminal you must be - we’re the police… err , wait. No we’re not. Today I came accross this marvelous article flagged on digg.com as a favourite, it’s by a nice chap at the black and white city paper and quite frankly, he’s my hero. At last, people are starting to question policy and make the leap of sane minded & forwardly fair thinking that is required to remind ourselves that what we buy in stores is ours, and there should clearly be no need to sit around for 45 minutes waiting for someone to make sure that you are not stealing things. Your a damn customer & no matter what the store’s excuse is - they are treating you like a criminal. Why? You’re a customer, you’ve bought your items, you legally own them. Furthermore, of course a store has no legal right to detain anyone and the game being played is both a fictional and social one. It’s of course the oldest game of them all “the sheep game”. I’m so glad I found this article. It’s refreshing. Read it, love it, and next time your in a store you’ll have the opportunity for some real ethical chinwagging, and of course, a marvelous opportunity to have a laugh at idiotic peoples following idiotic policies’ expense. Enjoy.

Customer Confidential

A new Black & White consumer column helps you fight bad service, bad products, and bad ideas.

November 16, 2006

Here’s a scenario that is familiar to anyone who has ever set foot in Wal-Mart, CVS, Rite-Aid, or any of a dozen other major retailers. After you have made a purchase, collected your bags, or packed everything into a shopping cart, you head for the exit. Just as you approach freedom an alarm sounds (usually a sequence of ugly, electronic grunts) and a robotic voice (always female) announces: “Please return to the checkout.” Other customers immediately look in your direction, and an employee begins to approach you. What’s your next move?

If you possess an ounce of personal pride or perhaps two ounces of fortitude, then the 100 percent correct move is to proceed immediately out the door. Why? There are many reasons, chief among them being that rational adults should not instantly obey mechanical voices (unless that voice instructs us to exit a burning aircraft). Also, if you haven’t stolen anything and therefore do not require interrogation, there is absolutely nothing that should compel you to linger post-transaction. It’s depressing enough simply being there in the first place. Another good reason to make a quick exit is that you aren’t being paid to assist some giant retailer with its security measures. You aren’t part of the team, and you didn’t clock in. The clearest reason for leaving the store, however, is that there exists absolutely no legal obligation to remain there, and the store has no right to detain you.

Illustration by Nolen Otts. (click for larger version)


Because all of the above constitute my position on the matter, I have established a mildly adversarial relationship with many retail establishments with whom I continue to do business. I don’t mind too much, because so far I have won all the battles in this long and silly war. What does trouble me is that retailers who, as a matter of policy, routinely treat customers like criminals have not changed their attitude about the issue. In fact, some vehemently defend their policies. I began closely paying attention to this phenomenon several years ago. My story begins at Wal-Mart during the Christmas shopping season of 2000.

It’s an unpleasant fact of life that sometimes we must shop at Wal-Mart, but the selection and savings in the pharmacy and auto department are worth braving the depressing atmosphere if you can get in and out fast enough. A speedy departure is exactly what I was thinking about that December evening as I sped my cart, after paying for all nine items, toward one of the exits. I was stopped by a 60-something gentleman who said he needed to see my receipt and check what was in my cart. I smiled and said, “I’m in a hurry to get out of this madness. Can’t help you.”

The truth is that I had no idea where that receipt was, and I wasn’t keen to search for it. The gentleman moved in front of the cart and firmly gripped the sides, saying “Sir, I must see your receipt before you leave.”

“Oh, I see what you mean,” I replied. “I guess we better get one of your security people over here.”

That puzzled him for a second. “Will you wait here while I get somebody? he asked.

“No.” I said. “I’m out the door as soon as you get out of the way.”

This was a spontaneous answer on my part, but in all honesty I was delighted to have stumbled onto a perfect dilemma for this zealous worker. If he stood his ground, he couldn’t see my receipt. But if he went for assistance, he might lose an opportunity to nail the Tylenol/Windex/Aussie Moist Conditioner thief. He then began to work his way up the side of the cart toward me, his strategy apparently being to keep one hand on the side of the cart and one foot on the floor at all times. Finally, he took hold of my forearm, which surprised me, but not in a good way.

“Never mind security,” I said. “Now you better go find a real police officer.” My captor gave that notion a moment’s thought and then began sprinting toward the rear of the building, making a dash for help in an incident that, for him, must have been escalating toward Def-Con 1. He wasn’t scared; he was determined. I stood there for some time, partly because the whole ridiculous scenario had stunned me, but also because I was even more impressed by how fast the old guy could move. Two other employees and a few customers who were observing the scene were impressed in a different way, I concluded, because they were all laughing at the poor fellow. I proceeded to my car, and that was the end of that. I kept the incident in mind for future reference.

• • •

In the spring, a man’s fancy lightly turns to lawn care, and I am therefore a frequent shopper in the gardening department at Wal-Mart, an area that in character and ambience stands in pleasant contrast to the rest of the store. I also have a habit of using the garden entrance and exit. But of course, that’s where the “greeter” invariably interrupts my reverie. “May I please see your receipt?” is the common request. The correct answer, which I also happened upon by accident, is “No, you may not.” What usually occurs next is that the greeter contacts security, because she or he never comprehends that they merely asked for permission that was subsequently not granted. There is nothing in that friendly exchange that hints of criminal activity, so what’s the point of hanging around?

If it sounds at this point as though I’m being an ornery crank about the whole matter, simply consider all those retail establishments at which customers spend vastly greater sums but are not interrogated before their departure. I’ve never been harassed at Pottery Barn or Restoration Hardware, for example. I resent certain measures taken by retailers who don’t check bags or receipts, but who do, by implication, still manage to punish all shoppers for the deeds of a few criminals. A favorite means of combating that takes place at Banana Republic and Macy’s. Just for fun, I’ll browse through the leather jackets or expensive sport coats that are fastened together by a cable that holds an alarm sensor. When a clerk approaches and offers to unstrap the merchandise, I simply inform him that I don’t try on clothes in orange-alert, high-security areas. Yes, I’m being a jerk in a very technical sense, but I’m sending a message to management, I hope. Throughout my struggle, I have assumed that enough of these encounters will eventually work their way up through corporate levels to a decision maker who might implement change. That may be a flawed assumption.

The idea that small battles won might not lead to final victory first entered my mind at Costco. Costco is one of my favorite stores in the world, from a purely fiscal perspective. You do indeed save money there. Moreover, the employees at this well-organized, disturbingly efficient warehouse are consistently cheerful and helpful. The butcher shop is cleaner than those I see at the major grocers in town. You can get a case of Coke in glass bottles for just over $10. No way is anyone going to foul up that shopping experience. But Costco is apparently willing to make the effort.

When you check out at Costco, an employee takes your cart, places items on a conveyor, and then another employee rings up the items. There are no bags here (one of the many cost-saving measures) but you may gather empty boxes from a designated area and organize things yourself, once you have paid. It’s a warehouse, after all. In any event, at this point a customer is at least 20 feet from any merchandise, with no access to the store unless they return through the checkout line. There’s nothing between you and the exit, except another employee who must check your receipt and mark it with a highlighting marker. Never mind that all of the items in your cart, which have obviously been paid for, were also placed there by a Costco employee.

One problem with this receipt-checking system is that on busy days it forces customers to form long lines at the exit. On some of my visits, I decided to roll past this line with my items, now that I owned them, and head straight to my car. The first time I tried this, a woman shouted at me to return to the store. I believe she was still yelling “Sir! Sir!” as I departed Patton Creek and approached the interstate ramp. I wouldn’t know; I was listening to a CD I had just purchased at Costco. It was my CD, you understand. Why not enjoy it?

On another visit, I decided to get the lay of the land before attempting any more non-compliant exits. Perhaps there was a rule or policy about the Costco system that made sense. There on the wall at the exit, I discovered, is a huge sign that reads:

Why is my register receipt reviewed when I leave the warehouse?
To assure that you paid for and are not overcharged or undercharged for any item. Also, marking the receipt disallows its reuse.

The completely misleading nature of that message became obvious during my next encounter with Costco security enforcement. As I suspected, there were about a dozen customers in line for “receipt review” at the exit. That represented about six extra minutes that I wasn’t being paid for, and so I rolled toward freedom. The employee “reviewing” receipts left the line and cheerfully said, “I’m going to have to see your receipt first.”

Adopting her happy demeanor, I replied, “And you are going to have to chase me in order to do so.” Sometimes it’s worth being an ass just to see the response on people’s faces. Not only was the receipt lady registering total bewilderment, but several customers in line for the same hassle appeared equally baffled. One woman glanced at me with what looked like total contempt. Her response was invigorating, although I’m not sure why. I continued toward my vehicle, where I was greeted by a man who looked and sounded like “security.”

“Was there a problem at the checkout, sir?” he asked.
“No, actually, checkout was great,” I said. “Very efficient. But leaving the store was a little shaky. In fact, there’s definitely a problem there.”
“What’s wrong?”
“Well, for openers, I don’t like being treated like a shoplifter.”
“Sir,” he solemnly stated, “No one is treating you like a shoplifter.”
“Really? Then why, exactly, am I having a conversation with store security, who just happened to reach my vehicle at the same time I did?”

Minutes seemed to pass. I thought I noticed a funnel cloud moving toward Vestavia. A faint aroma of cotton candy was in the air. The forty-ish woman loading her purchase into a car two spaces down was wearing tight-fitting, corduroy jeans. She looked amazing. Finally the security guy responded. “Sir, our people checking receipts are doing their jobs. It’s a store policy that we inspect receipts. We’re trying to make sure you paid the right price.”

We get served a lob like that only so many times, and I wasn’t letting this one go. My research was finally paying off. I chose to be polite, because the security guy was actually quite calm and friendly about the whole incident. “This is a warehouse,” I replied. “There are no prices on those items in my cart, so how would they know if I were overcharged? Never mind, here’s another thing you should know. In my last five visits here, I allowed your staff to see my receipts, and they instantly marked them without so much as glancing at the totals. They were simply making certain that I had paid for something, and that I could not come back and use that receipt at a later date. In other words, to stop my attempts, present and future, at theft—you know, as though I were a potential shoplifter. Your sign with the message about ensuring that I wasn’t overcharged is what shoppers like me sometimes call bullshit. That’s Home Depot behind us. I spent a few hundred dollars there last year. Just to our right is Sears. I spent almost that much there last Christmas. No one reviewed my receipts at either store. Please tell me what I’m doing wrong.”

The security guy walked away, perhaps wondering if Costco had not fully explained to him all the details of “receipt review.” It’s also possible that he knew, without a doubt, that I was just one more jackass who “didn’t get it.” These are store policies, damn it.

• • •

I contacted management at Wal-Mart, Costco, and other retailers to get some comments for this article about their respective policies. Long story short, no one is budging, and some retailers are downright proud of those policies. Wal-Mart has the most detached view of the issue, it seems. Their explanation of the process has to do with “security detection determining that sensors have not been deactivated; retraining transaction staff, etc.,” but nothing to do with human volition. For Wal-Mart, theft and theft prevention are natural phenomena, much like the weather. No one is being treated like a criminal, you see, it’s strictly a case of “devices detecting active sensors.” There’s really nothing Wal-Mart can do. Except have a greeter rummage through bags of items that legally belong to you. While you wait.

There are some things that shoppers can do, however. First, the deer-in-the-headlights response to security alarms must end. Smile and walk with confidence through the exit. Bear in mind that being suspected of theft is actually a reason to leave the store, not a reason to stay, in much the same way that no one remains at a party after they have been insulted by the host. If a particular retailer wants to play games by insisting that they are merely ensuring that you were not overcharged, then by all means let’s check all 74 items in the cart, poring over the receipt line by line while other customers wait. Another fun approach, if you are detained, is to inform the store that they may indeed inspect your bags or your receipt, if and only if all items are immediately returned for a full refund. That gets their attention. Or just tell them to call a cop. If you’re the theatrical type, adopt a German accent and repeat loudly that your papers are in order (with the same accent you can do the old Berlin Wall bit and say that you have friends at the central committee). The odds of a customer in the store getting the joke are very slim, but anyone who does get the reference will remember you forever. It will feel good to be someone’s hero.

Last fall, while I was waiting for a prescription to be filled, I stood near the exit of my local pharmacy reading a product description on a bottle of shampoo. Two elderly customers set off the sensor alarm as they walked out, but I told them to go ahead, because “that crazy thing had been going off all day, and we had not figured out how to stop it yet.” I also thanked them for shopping with us. When an employee arrived a few seconds later, I waved the bottle and apologized for getting too close to the sensors. All was well. I’m seldom that fast on my feet, but I was having a good week, apart from the sinus infection. With that in mind, as Thanksgiving approaches and the shopping season gains momentum, I hope that my story will be the catalyst for a quantum shift in consumer habits. &

Comments

Evil Banks, Evil Economy

Just another conspiracy theory? No guys, I’m going to bring this up more later. Why isn’t this a conspiracy theory? Well, other than a few historical inaccuracies it’s true - the way the banking system works is immoral and if we really knew how it worked as a general public - we’d all revolt.

Really.
[googlevideo]4934150325840063361[/googlevideo]

Comments

« Previous entries