Random Rants by KC

Gullible Morons Passing on Bad Info

2012-01-07T21:53:00.000-08:00

Earlier today, I was eating lunch with a friend while lamenting that the GPS on my phone is glitchy. I had a GPS app loaded, which is telling me that it saw the GPS constellation of satellites (about 10) while I was sitting still inside the restaurant. We walked out, and I was remarking about how the GPS lost track while moving, when some high school kids around the corner made a random remark:

"Mister! You may want to turn that GPS off! Government can track you with it!"

For a moment, I was about to turn back and tell him that he's being stupid, that he had no idea how GPS actually works, but then, I thought better. You can't convince a conspiracy theorist that there is no conspiracy. His mind is already made up.

Besides, there is slight bits of truth in that statement, crazy as it sounds.

E911 service is always on for any cell phone sold in the US. This means if you dialed 911, the other side will receive your location (if available).

However, a GPS by itself doesn't send anything. GPS is a PURELY PASSIVE DEVICE. it only receives. It is NOT A BEACON.

A cell phone on the other hand, can be tracked even withOUT the built-in GPS, by triangulating the signal off multiple towers. This is called aGPS. Some WiFi equipped cell phones can also look for WiFi hotspots with known locations and thus know the current location.

But this goes back to a fundamental question: how *does* GPS receivers work? How can they calculate your location on earth based on just receiving signals from the sky? Well, it has to do with the GPS satellites in the sky (together, they're known as a "constellation").

The guys who created GPS was inspired by the Sputnik. Sputnik puts out a 1 Hertz beep, and you know its orbit. By listening to the signal, and calculate its doppler effect, you can work out where on Earth you can approximately, but it's not very accurate, as there's no cross check.

So GPS uses multiple satellites.

Each satellite has a unique orbit, and its transmission has a unique signature. It is also VERY VERY precise in its broadcast time-wise. Thus, if you have an accurate clock, you can measure the signal coming off one satellite. You know what pulse rate it *should* be. If you then measure its pulse rate as received by you, then you know the doppler shift. You know its velocity, thus, working backwards, you can calculate your approximate latitude. By working off math off at least THREE satellites in the constellation, you can get both lattitude AND longitude, and if you get a fourth one, you can get height. The more satellites you can "fix" the better your accuracy.

So that's the rant. :)

You call this "free-thinking"?

2011-12-13T12:30:00.000-08:00

As I remarked before, by NOT holding an extreme position, you get fire from both sides.

When when you point out one side's blind spots, you got labelled as "obstructionist, misleading, inaccurate" and other derogatory labels.

So what was a "stream of false and defamatory statements" that this guy was referring to? I'll link to it and you can see for yourself:

Here: http://randomrantsbykc.blogspot.com/2011/09/update-on-dbs-situation.html 10-SEP-2011

Here: http://randomrantsbykc.blogspot.com/2011/09/db-update-again-except-it-aint-db.html 10-SEP-2011

here: http://randomrantsbykc.blogspot.com/2011/09/truce-with-db-did-not-hold.html 12-SEP-2011

and here http://randomrantsbykc.blogspot.com/2011/09/ive-been-declared-persona-non-grata-but.html 20-SEP-2011

The only "negative" word I have used is "fanatic", as in "don't argue with a fanatic".

What is the definition of "fanaticism"?

Definition for fanaticism:

Web definitions:

excessive intolerance of opposing views.

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Yep, that's EXACT what it is. They are so convinced they're on the side of absolute truth (that is "self-evident") that they don't tolerate one iota of dissent. They are, by definition, fanatics.

And the fact is they are such fanatics, they refused to be labelled as fanatics. When I quoted the definition back at them, my definition was deleted.

And they claim to be "free-thinkers". Clearly, they mean "thinks-like-us-ers".

Another item: they claim to be tracking the TVI Express scam:

Funniest thing: I posted that URL on their website. And they claim they're closely monitoring it. Must be AFTER I posted it, yes? Because you will find NO MENTION of TVI Express between April 2011, and November 2011.

If they were closely monitoring TVI Express, how could they have missed an article published in South Africa back in AUGUST 2011? Or how TVI Express got its business license revoked in Indonesia, declared illegal in Lesotho, and various other developments? Clearly, they were NOT monitoring TVI Express (at least, not as close as I was monitoring it), and their dismissive attitude is merely a facade to cover their own lack of coverage on this scam.

If you point out something they missed, they claim they didn't miss it, they've been watching it all along. (Yeah right ) Clearly, to be a part of their "free-thinkers" one must pretend that DB and SS knows everything and choose not to share them, and then when someone else posts something agree with their claim that "we knew that all along."

If you point out they said something that didn't follow logically, they censor your comment and claim you were insulting them, or they pull out some bogus logical fallacies, like "All MLMs are illegal because all MLMs are fraud and all frauds are illegal", when one cannot prove that all MLMs are frauds. When you ask them why all MLMs are frauds, they cite Robert Fitzpatrick, who, along with Dr. John Taylor, concluded that 99% of participants lose money. However, that doesn't in itself prove that MLMs are frauds. It just means that MLMs are financially bad for participants. It doesn't necessarily mean fraud (unless you define fraud as "losing money", which is way too broad).

I will go as far as saying that MLMs are always in danger of turning fraudulent, but I won't go as far as say all MLMs are frauds, because such a blanket statement is nearly impossible to prove (but not to these "free-thinkers", who even agreed that "MLM is not yet declared illegal in the US")

That's why I am an enemy to these so-called "free-thinkers". I won't go the rest of the way to agree with their extreme position.

If you point out that censoring comments that in any way does not conform to their view is fanaticism, they censor your comment and claim you were insulting them.

Does that sound like "free-thinkers" to you?

SpeakAsia: intent to violate the law in Bangladesh?

2011-12-12T19:24:00.000-08:00

SpeakAsia was in MAJOR legal trouble in India, and the business basically withered on a vine in Bangladesh.

So it was surprising that some panelists are speaking about reviving it and run it as a NON-MLM company.

But they are keeping "uplines".

So already they plan to defraud the government: claiming they are NOT MLM when in fact they are. Why else would it have uplines?

5. If any one want to change the upline, then it would be allowed for 1 week or less

6. Speak Asia would run here as a NGO (Non Govt. Organisation) not a MLM (Multi Level Marketing concern)

http://www.thebhaskar.com/2011/12/speak-asia-would-run-bangladesh-as-ngo.html

When scams attack: using DDOS on critics

2011-12-12T19:14:00.000-08:00

One of my most visited websites, BehindMLM.com, is down, and so did its companion site.

As it had worked for months and months without a hiccup, and today is on the eve of a MAJOR announcement in a scam it is tracking, either this is a terrible coincidence, or someone unleashed the "low orbit ion cannon" on it to prevent it from comment on the news.

If this is indeed what happened, this would be a SECOND time an Indian scam has unleashed a cyberattack on a website that criticized the scam. The first time was TVI Express unleashing LOIC on Ted Nuyten's website in the Netherlands.

UPDATE: FALSE ALARM

BehindMLM.com is back, apparently some sort of DNS screwup.

True Neutrals Get Hit on Both Sides

2011-12-10T12:01:00.000-08:00

When one encounters a polarizing issue, it is difficult to stay neutral, as you are viewed as an enemy both BOTH sides of the issue.

Such as MLM.

My opinion on MLM is quite simple: it is an extremely DANGEROUS form of business that is just one step removed from outright pyramid scheme. (I'll link to the article later) I will not dismiss it as an outright scam, as it *is* currently legal in the US and abroad (in most countries).

To the opponents of MLM, I don't go far enough. They want me to say ALL MLMS ARE SCAMS. Thus, I am the enemy as I somehow "validate" existence of MLM, even when I agree that most MLMs are scams.

To proponents of MLM, I am out to bad mouth MLMs. Thus, I am the enemy of MLM.

See what I mean by getting it from both sides?

Perfect illustration for "Correlation Does Not Equals to Causation"

2011-11-28T11:34:00.001-08:00

WTF?! Ryanair wants to remove restrooms from their planes

2011-10-17T18:30:00.000-07:00

Apparently, having 3 restrooms for 189 passengers on their 737's is two too many.

And no, I'm NOT making this up.

http://www.everydaymoney.ca/2011/10/ryanair-now-to-remove-toilets-from-its-planes.html

General comment about MLM and its supporters / critics

2011-09-27T21:52:00.000-07:00

People who are involved with MLM generally comes in 6 types

MLM Grunts
MLM Stars
MLM Coaches
MLM Attorneys
MLM Opponents
MLM Critics

Each group have their own blindspots and strengths.

MLM grunts -- generally your "grunts", often addicted to MLMs, joining one after another always looking for the "big score", may even make some money, often believe in the MLM (no matter which one) with religious fervor. May or may not graduate to MLM upper level (see below).

Strengths: there are a lot of them, willingness to learn and earn
Weaknesses: often completely ignorant regarding the realities of MLM, such as what makes a MLM legal, easily lead astray by unscrupulous stars and coaches

MLM stars -- those with some recruiting skill and able to build a clique can take the clique from one MLM to another, probably spent decades in the business, and claims to make a comfortable living using his people skills, not sales skills.

Strengths: personal skills allows team building, knows most of the recruiting tricks and how to maximize profit in minimum time by leveraging his connections, have a bit of an ego
Weaknesses: often just as ignorant about the legalities as the grunts, often "raids" a MLM (move in, make a bundle, get out), ego often lets oneself get in big trouble with big mouth

MLM coaches -- "bottom feeders" of the industry... may be a direct participant, but often just use the "coaching" title to seek recruits for his or her current favorite MLM, teaches terribly obvious stuff, often advertise via Youtube and similar videos and generic capture pages. May also go by title of "marketing coach", "attraction coach", and so on.

Strengths: some may actually know something to teach, and some are honest about teaching
Weaknesses: most just want to get paid for "training" but don't want to get involved in MLM itself, too many of them impossible to check their bonafides, and most are just as ignorant as their students about MLM in general. Some "coaches" are just recruiters in sheep's clothing.

MLM attorneys -- they actually know the law that governs MLM, and advises MLMs on what is legal, and what is not. They sometimes also make observations about the industry and upcoming law changes.

Strengths: actually knows the laws involved: when they say it's illegal, it really is!
Weaknesses: has a pro-industry bias, as it is their livelihood, and can't really be considered neutral

MLM opponents -- i.e. "MLM is fundamentally fraudulent" critics, who believe MLM is just a pyramid scheme somehow legalized with minor differences. Examples include Robert Fitspatrick and Dr. John Taylor.

Strengths: have studied the issues at length, with sufficient documentation and such to back up a lot of their claims, hearts at the right place
Weaknesses: some are extremely inflexible in their views, and refused to even acknowledge the current legal state where MLM is legal, and pyramid scheme is not, and has a bit of tunnel vision

MLM critics -- those who consider MLM industry to be polluted by scams posing as MLMs, and are out there to point out the "bad apples" before they tarnish the industry. Example would be Rod Cook, Troy Dooly, and so on.

Strengths: knows the difference between the legal, and the illegal, pretty close to genuine third-party as you will find
Weaknesses: has a SLIGHT pro-industry bias, as it must accept "MLM is legal" (which is fact) and use that as basis to root out pyramid schemes.

I consider myself a MLM critic, slipping toward MLM opponent, thus, I consider myself a true neutral in this mess. :D

This is my problem with DB, as DB is a MLM Opponent. In his world view, a "legal MLM" does not exist. Yet a MLM "critic"'s fundamental worldview is that MLM is legal, and pryamid scheme is not. Thus, somehow MLM critics and MLM opponents sometimes end up on opposite sides, even when both are out to bash pyramid schemes.

As for the rest, I consider the MLM Stars and Coaches to be... scum. Let me explain why:

MLM grunts don't know anything, and since they are always trained by coaches or stars, they will say whatever their upline (coach or star) say. And if the coach or star choose to tell them lies (or that was how s/he learned it: a lie) then the lie will be perpetuated. Most MLM coaches or Stars don't know much more than their downlines / recruits, esp. on the LEGAL issues. Some just use their skills to build a personality cult and get them to move from one MLM to another, thus enriching him- or herself at the expense of the members but blaming the members for their failures (I am doing great, why aren't you?)

Coaches are even worse. Coaches are basically grunts who thought they can make money by being on the edges of MLM without getting their feet wet. They often have NO idea what makes a MLM profitable or not, or even whether it's legal or not. Yet they want to teach how to recruit, how to generate leads, and whatnot, and get paid for teaching such things.

No doubt SOME stars and coaches are ethical, but I doubt there are too many of them. Remember, there is no barrier to entry in this field. ANYBODY can claim to be a MLM coach. At least with MLM star there's a bit of reputation you can verify, but that doesn't prove the industry is viable, merely that the star has interpersonal skills to form a clique.

What about MLM critics? We are often guilty of a bit of bias ourselves. We tend to look at the status quo, that MLM is legal, without examining the deeper issues (such as the concerns that MLM opponents raised and their research). MLM itself has fatal flaws that needs to be addressed, as it is very prone to abuse, until laws are passed and modern enforcement for financial crime beefed up, MLM critics will be too busy bashing the various pyramid schemes out there disguised as MLMs to study MLM itself.

And that leaves the MLM grunts as the real victims. If they run into a ethical coach or star, great. But if they ran into a scam disguised as MLM, or an unethical coach or star, then either this grunt will quit MLM altogether, become addicted to serial MLM, without knowing what's legal and what's not (never got trained in the right issues and knowledge), often aspiring to clone their upline, and so on.

Why don't DMV or places with incredibly long lines have SMS notification?

2011-09-26T14:32:00.000-07:00

Everybody in California knows about the lines at a DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles). If you line up at 7:30AM (it actually opens at 8), you may be out by 9AM. If you like up at 9:30 AM, you probably out by 12PM. If you line up any later, you may be out before closing, but just barely.

They have an automated system now that gives out numbers, and then automatically announce "F07 at Windows 14" but it's still dumb. You never know how fast the line moves, so there's no estimate, so you're pretty much forced to stick around FOREVER, and if you happen to miss your slot...

Pharmacies like Walgreen can send SMS to your number to let you know when your perscription is ready to pick up. Why can't DMV do something similar? Say you're F47, you'll get a SMS when the queue is like F42. Then you can reply with CANCEL if you want to abandon the place (like you won't make it back). The system can even predict how fast the wait will be based on the last 10 people processed.

How much would such a system cost? Minimal, and actually fit within their existing system. Should cost less than $1000 per DMV branch, plus cost to send the SMS, even less if you don't want the "CANCEL feature.

I've been declared Persona-Non-Grata, but NOT by DB

2011-09-20T20:49:00.000-07:00

Final update about DB and his friend who has a blog that does good stuff, but is a bit too... insular.

If you have read this blog, you'll find that I had been polite on DB and friend's blog even though they are determined to cast me as an enemy. I spent much of the time agreeing with them, even though I have problems with some of their logic.

They did not like that at all.

Then the "friend" who actually owns the blog put out an entry declaring that I am no longer welcome on his blog, because I have demonstrated my affinity to the Amway scam. What?!

Then I realized that this guy posted a few comments repeating DB's point that there is no such thing as a "legitimate fraud".

I thought DB had abandoned that thought?

But any way, this guy, again, hates the term "legitimate MLM". Apparently any one who claims MLM is legitimate is an enemy. These are his words:

" For the simple reason there were no complaints and the law did not catch up, an illegitimate business would not become legitimate. And this is an established law. You are sounding that it something is legal somewhere because the law did not catch it up. It is sending wrong signals to the gullible. That is why you are not welcome to spread canards."

Clearly, this guy is ignoring the fact that even DB had stated CLEARLY that "MLM has yet to be declared illegal (in the US)". Thus, he refused to acknowledge such a thing as a legitimate fraud.

Or in other words, he's holding a view "MLM is illegal", even though it's not an absolute truth. And he's banning any one who dare suggest otherwise on his blog all in the name of saving the "gullible", even people who dare suggest a more accurate statement "MLM should be illegal, but has not been outlawed in some areas".

Now who's being unreasonable? But it is his blog. So, that's it.

And they claim to be "free-thinkers", *sigh*.

Truce with DB did not hold

2011-09-12T02:12:00.000-07:00

As expected, DB and partner have decided to interpret my question on how applicable RICO act is to MLM in the most negatively light possible.

An observation about a large MLM had tried to settle the civil RICO suit was construed as I am somehow supporting this MLM, as the partner claiming that I showed my true colors, when I cited the case to prove that the case had not been resolved, therefore this "private prosecution" doesn't mean anything YET.

Again, my position was misinterpreted. I don't disagree with the opinion that MLM industry has organized and entrenched itself to mount a vigorous defense for its right to exist. I agree that MLM fundamentally is flawed and causes losses for most of its partcipants based on available historical data. I simply question whether it had risen to the point where it should be considered "organized crime" in the style of Mafia and need to be prosecuted with the RICO act, and furthermore whether RICO act even applies to a "business model", even a fundamentally flawed one such as MLM.

(BTW, you should read a report written by an organized crime specialist G. Robert Blakey, it's fascinating stuff, about how much similarity there is between Amway and Mafia. Just keep in mind this guy was retained by an opponent of Amway to write this report, so it ain't exactly one-sided third-party objective opinion, but rather, expert testimony presented by one side. )

Yet DB and partner chose to interpret my skepticism to the RICO act application as opposition to their view "MLM is fraud", when it is not.

This shows the exact same pattern as before. Previously, DB chose to interpret my statement "MLM is legal (under certain circumstance)" (NOT an exact quote) as conflicting with their dogma "MLM is fraud (and therefore illegal)" (NOT an exact quote). It doesn't matter how many qualifiers I add, he takes personal offense at that expression, even after he corrected it to say "MLM has not been declared illegal". He simply refuse to even CONSIDER the notion that a fraud is legal UNTIL specifically outlawed, esp. if it's a new form (and once entrenched, it will defend itself to the death). He chose to interpret "MLM is legal, but fraud" as a DEFENSE of MLM, instead of a statement of fact as the way things are. Though he eventually conceded the point (by lamenting how law makers failed the public).

Same here. I asked if RICO act even applies to MLM (and a certain MLM company), and DB chose to interpret that as a defense of this particular MLM company (and thus, to his viewpoint). He had simply again, refuse to consider the possibility that RICO Act may not apply to the situation he had envisioned. His view is that MLM is a racket, thus racketeering law automatically applies, even though RICO act specified 35 specific offenses as "racketeering activity" that warrants application of the RICO act. Of the 35 offenses listed, maybe two activities are the most likely to apply: wire fraud and mail fraud, but both are a bit of a stretch, as explained before.

So, is it an attack on the fundamental view "MLM is a racket"? Or just skepticism on "Does RICO Law apply to MLM?" Again, a matter of degree. If one's mind is only black and white, then perhaps skepticism at a PART of the claim can be construed as opposition. But that's not much of "free-thinking", is it?

DB Update again... Except it ain't DB.

2011-09-10T12:30:00.000-07:00

Just when I thought DB and I reached a truce, his partner decided to play censor.

Previously I've explained an incident where a comment about DB's writing style was censored by partner, and how DB is fond of claiming that MLM is a racket and ought to be treated like one by applying the RICO act on them.

So I took a look at the RICO act, at the actual text, mind you, NOT the wikipedia summary. It defined rackteering activity as a LOT of things, but none of them really applies to what MLM does.

So I posted the observation over, hoping for an honest discussion on the limitations of RICO act and its applicability on MLM. as DB claimed that other countries should adopt similar legislation to RICO.

The observation was DELETED by partner, with a comment about it's unsolicited, misinterpreted, and untrue.

Unsolicited is fine, but hardly irrelevant, as it was DB that kept mentioning RICO act (3 times in past 5 blog posts).

Misinterpeted... Okay, except the partner claimed I misinterpreted WIKIPEDIA. I did NOT! I interpreted teh ACTUAL TEXT of the law, NOT Wikipedia! (I even included to link to the text)

Untrue, that people have inintiated "private prosecution" of Amway under RICO act... Okay... Google... yep, some former Amway reps sued Amway under RICO act, which is one of the provisions... private lawsuits. However, the case has NOT concluded, and Amway is prepared to settle the case back in April 2011, but the judge didn't like the settlement and told them to work it out some more.

That wasn't a conviction or even an admission or guilt.

Thus, the partner's behavior is extremely troubling. To be blunt, this person is censoring any comments that can be remotely construed as counter to their viewpoint, that they cannot debate or ridicule. if they think they can ridicule it, then they will publish it and ridicule it. If they can't, they'll delete it and claim "they don't allow untruths to be posted for the free-thinkers".

Clearly, there's a limit to their free-thinking.

Now let's go onto RICO, and MLM.

The lawsuit, which can be found here, claimed that Amway's business is fundamentally fraudulent, thus any attempt in mailing stuff out to members and communication over the Internet to promote such business model would constitute mail and wire fraud, which ARE two activities listed under racketeering activities under the RICO act.

As you can see, this gets messy very quickly, but then, lawyers are known to stretch the truth somewhat. :)

To make RICO law applicable to Amway, you must prove that wire fraud and mail fraud took place

You then have to prove that the magazine subscriptions are indeed, fraudulent, or contain material that are fraudulent, thus, constituting mail fraud.

You then have to prove that the internet communications are indeed, fraudulent, or contain material that are fraudulent thus constituting wire fraud.

If you can prove TWO of those acts are fraudulent, then you can have a RICO case, as two acts within 10 years constitutes racketeering.

You see the problem? What's in the Amway magazine? Have you read one? It's basically a bunch of self-help tips, profiles on 'successful' IBOs, announcement of new products, new markets, and other developments. In other words, a cheerleading magazine designed to make Amway look good. But is it fraudulent?

Or is Amway's website fraudulent? Because if it is, then it's wire fraud.

See the problem? How do you exactly prove that the magazine is fraudulent or promotes fraud? How about proving that the website is fraudulent or promotes fraud?

Hmmm...

Update on DB's situation

2011-09-10T02:14:00.000-07:00

Getting DB to admit fault is like pulling teeth. What's worse, he has a partner what won't tolerate criticism of DB.

What's worse, DB's writing style is extremely annoying to readers, as he has a tendency to assume things that he had little evidence of, simply to denigrate his "opponent", such as... me.

As I've written on here before, I am NOT DB's opponent. We both hate frauds, albeit we have somewhat different scope.

Yet DB is so fixated on "MLM is a fraud" he refused to accept the fact that "MLM is legal (in the US)". And because I had stated so, he somehow decided I am his opponent. And he proceed to cast various aspersions on me for making such an OBVIOUS STATEMENT OF ACT.

So I ask him why does he not accept this fact, and his reply? MLM is fraud, fraud is illegal, therefore MLM is illegal. (He then goes into how MLM is a racket that should be charged under the RICO Act and how all law enforcement have been deceived... blah blah blah, more on that later) And he made a correction... Instead of "MLM is legal", it should be that "MLM has not been declared illegal."

At the time, I was quite tempted to reply, "what's the difference?" Though I decided to concede the point and argue about it later. You see, there is this "presumption of innocence" principle in US law... but later.

So I replied, okay, I'll change that, I agree. But you could have said that in ONE SENTENCE! You were extremely wordy!

Then his partner took offence of that observation and DELETED MY COMMENT, even the part where I AGREE WITH THE CHANGES!

More on that later.

I posted a FURTHER explanation. DB refused to accept that there is such a thing as "legal fraud". According to DB, fraud cannot be legal, even though it clearly does exist, such as when law failed to catch up with changing times. (EX: Stalking wasn't illegal until laws are passed specifically against it only after some stalker killed famous actress, if I recall correctly).

It's clear that DB's mind is made up, and refused to consider any facts I present. So I hauled out an expert who we BOTH admired, and a direct quote from him that clearly stated that there is such a thing as "legal fraud". He even named multiple examples.

To my surprise, DB's next blogpost made NO mention of me, no more personal attacks on me, my thought process, my nationality and so on.

A truce is perfectly acceptable.

We'll discuss possible application of RICO to MLM "racket" next time.

This is what happens when I get baited into a debate I should have never been in....

2011-08-08T19:57:00.000-07:00

A while back, I got into a debate on which I am ill-prepared for about that very big company known as Alticor. Let's call my "opponent" DB.

DB believes all companies like Alticor are evil, and want them all to be outlawed. In fact, he considers all of them pyramid schemes, and the US FTC made a big mistake in legalizing a certain form of it, known today is multi-level marketing, or network marketing, back in 1970's.

I tried to point out that there are something even MORE evil, such as a pyramid scheme, esp. pyramid schemes that disguised itself as MLM. I've studied such a scam for a while on my other blog. For a week, things are rather cordial.

Then things start to turn sour when DB realized I won't join him in condemning Alticor. So he started calling me names. And we digressed into discussion on something I have NO experience on.

My MLM knowledge is on a scam which PRETENDS to be a legal MLM. A scam that pretends to be legitimate must be even MORE EVIL than a legal MLM, right? Despite several attempts to explain to DB that I won't pass judgment on Alticor because I have not studied it, DB had labelled me "opponent" and proceed to eviscerate me on his blog. Actually, it's not even his blog, though he blogs on it more than the owner.

(BTW, that blog is not a bad source for info, if you can get past DB's grandiose writing style)

I never claimed Alticor to be good business. I only recalled proclaiming it to be LEGAL. One of my defenses was citing an anti-MLM expert (who have indeed studied the subject extensively) who stated in one of his missives that most MLMs are pyramid schemes, but there are some legal and ethical ones out there.

So DB's response? He claimed to know the guy personally and thus he knew that this expert had yet to find a single ethical and profitable MLM company, and thus I had misrepresented this expert's position. Then he, in his typical gradiose verbal style, demands an apology from me to all the readers of that blog for my "intellectual dishonesty".

How was I supposed to know that the missive itself was not accurate, DB?

In any case, DB, if you want an apology, the apology you'll get is... I admit to being stupid enough to be sucked into a debate from which I am ill-prepared for, and should have never participated, though I still consider you a "friend" in the sense that we are both anti-scam.

You stick to your crusade, and I'll stick with mine.

Gifting Circles are ILLEGAL Ponzi Schemes!

2011-08-03T22:21:00.000-07:00

I've seen morons that claim "gifting circles" are legal because no returns are "expected".

Well, the Federal Government begs to differ, as it is investigating into such on the East Coast.

So what the heck is gifting circle?

You start at the "outside" of the circle. You need to gift some money into the person in the center.

Keep giving, and you move closer to the center.

When you reach the center, YOU will be receiving the money.

Sounds interesting? Sounds stupid to me. It's a pretty darn blatant Ponzi scheme.

Yet some morons claim that because IRS allow "gifting" of assets under tax code, gifting circle is legal.

Clearly they didn't read the section on pyramid schemes.

Does Massive Vulnerability to Pyramid Scheme Hint at Deeper Problems in India?

2011-07-30T20:08:00.000-07:00

Recently India had been rocked by a massive financial fraud known as "SpeakAsia". The company started almost two years ago and claim to be a "survey company" where participants just need to join, get monthly e-zine, and then take surveys to make money. However, casual examination of its compensation package revealed to be a thinly disguised pyramid scheme that relies on recruiting new members, who also subscribe to the program. The more you recruit, the more you "earn".

What is interesting about the phenomenon is the fervent defense by the "believers" of SpeakAsia, who shows all signs of being a brainwashed cult member, who can only recite "SpeakAsia is Great, death of all enemies of SpeakAsia" or its variants. Some even called upon death of the government as it is the only thing standing between them and prosperity under SpeakAsia.

Is there some thing to learn from this mess? Is there some deep-seated vulnerability of Indians to scams?

The Cult of SpeakAsia

In April and May 2011 TV Station did a massive expose on the scam, and lid started to came off the scam, which by then claimed two million members in and around India, even though the company is supposedly based in Singapore. Multiple agencies in India started investigating, and accounts were frozen, then unfrozen, then frozen again. COO was then arrested for financial irregularities and forgery. (See details )

What remains constant is massive amount of "popular support" by SpeakAsia members, who sprouted statements such as

india poor. Do u know why. coz some people like this word. Who r they. Who fight against saol to get down. They are bad man of india. Die badman of india. if u die than we can earn. We can rich we want to hear india is rich.

SAOL = Speak Asia Online

Basically, the only thing standing between them and prosperity through this scam is the government, so the government must go.

The calmer ones blame the government for freezing the assets of SpeakAsia so they lose their money:

But what about the people who have already put in thousands of rupees into this, because of the govt. taking action, the current investors are also not getting their money back!! is that not wrong ? shouldn’t the govt protect the investors’ interest ?

SpeakAsia definitely did not help the situation by releasing a video portraying all challengers as the devil(s) incarnate (red cape and devil face).

(See screen caps of videos and the actual comments at
http://behindmlm.com/companies/speak-asia-online/speak-asia-lose-the-plot-bollywood-meets-mlm/
and
http://behindmlm.com/companies/speak-asia-online/speak-asia-online-coo-tarak-bajpai-arrested-in-mumbai/comment-page-1/#comment-28420 )

Did all these people (let's say, HALF of the panelists, or 1 million) got brainwashed into trusting this SpeakAsia scam more than the government? Or is there some deep sense of distrust of the government that remained untapped until this fraud exposed it and exploited it?

Pyramid Scheme and Power of Reality Inversion

Pyramid schemes, when gotten large enough, can actually topple governments. Government of Albania was destroyed in 1997-98 by pyramid schemes and over 2000 people died in the chaotic aftermath. A series of pyramid schemes ensnared 2/3rd of population, according to IMF report, and it took several years for Albania's economy to recover.

In Colombia, a major Ponzi scheme ran by DMG Group (which also was used to launder money from drug trafficking) collapsed in 2008, and in a rare cooperation between nations, the head of the scheme, David Murcia Guzman, was extradited to the US, convicted of money laundering, and will serve 8-year sentence here, THEN remanded back to Colombia to serve ANOTHER 30 years sentence. The scam involved up to two BILLION dollars, and severely damaged the credibility of the Uribe government when it was revealed that two of President Uribe's sons were good friends of the head perp. Riots broke out in several cities and mobs appeared to ransack (or try to) DMG offices. Police had to use riot gas to disperse the crowds.

What's interesting is some of these people claim that David Murcia Guzman was doing the country a favor... by passing on some of the wealth to the poor.

But there was a twist to this Icarus-like story: many of the small investors in D.M.G. saw Mr. Murcia not as a swindler but as their savior and protested his capture in almost a dozen cities. They claim the government’s intervention in D.M.G., not the nature of its activities, caused the loss of their savings. A hunger strike by his most die-hard supporters, who want his release and the reopening of D.M.G., persisted well into January in the colonial heart of Bogotá.

... Supporters chanted “Crea en Dios y en David Murcia” (“Believe in God and in David Murcia”).

( link to NY Times Article here )

What is it about pyramid schemes that can lead people to see evil as good, and see villain as hero? The only thing to compare it to is a cult, and not merely a cult, but a DESTRUCTIVE CULT.

Pyramid Scheme as a Cult

Virtually every nation have laws against operating pyramid schemes, because the losers vastly outnumber the winners. European Union has laws under "consumer protection directive", and is a common set of laws across all European Union Members. In the US, the laws are slightly fragmented, as some is regulated by SEC, some by FTC, and some by individual states.

Indeed, such a problem is in India, where multiple agencies realized they don't seem to have laws to enforce on a company which is not physically present in India. While India does have a "Prize Chits and Money Circulation Fraud Law (anti-)" there is no National Agency to enforce this law. Instead, enforcement must be initiated by individual province. The National Reserve Bank of India, as well as Criminal Investigative Division (CID) and Economic Offenses Wing (EOW), of various provincial governments finally responded recently with arrests and freezing of accounts, but it is estimated that over 100 million dollars have already left India for accounts in Singapore.

And it is amazing how much support this scheme still has among the "Speak Asians", as they refer to themselves (actually, that's a company term, as one of its marketing campaigns is "I am a Speak Asian"). Do they exhibit any OTHER signs of cult membership? These are the signs from CultClinic.com

Thinking in black and white terms -- YES
Using a new language/cultic jargon -- YES
Saying goodbye to all old friends and only seeing people affiliated with, or not critical of the cult -- PROBABLY YES
Creating distance from family, especially during holidays and family events -- UNKNOWN
Euphoric, yet simultaneously tired and worn -- PROBABLY YES
Humorless -- UNKNOWN
A change in diet and sleep patterns -- UNKNOWN
Low on money -- YES
Poor grades -- UNKNOWN
A dismissal of their life prior to involvement with the group as "all bad" -- UNKNOWN, PROBABLY YES
A change in goals, priorities, and life plan -- YES
Return to child-like behavior -- UNKNOWN
Dogmatic adherence to new beliefs/ideas, with the inability, or lack of interest to logically assess these new beliefs -- YES
Secrecy -- UNKNOWN

Wow, that's a lot of yes signs for something that wasn't supposed to be a cult at all.

Vulnerability to a Cult (of Money)

It is interesting that such a cult of money is often formed in the poorer areas of the world. Colombia, Albania, Indonesia, India... all have seen bouts of pyramid schemes where many are cheated of money, because they see the "potential" of such schemes, but not its illegality.

What do pyramid schemes offer? "Instant riches", enough to change the life of a typical family in those areas.

They don't care if it's illegal or not. They just want the chance, if they don't have to directly cheat, hurt, kill, or steal to get it. If you just TELL these people it's illegal pyramid scheme, they won't believe it. They can self-justify themselves into seeing it as "it's okay, it's not THAT illegal." Esp. if they are taught to see it as "introduce that other party to the opportunity so THAT person can also be rich like you."

It is also worth noting that these countries have rather low opinion of their governments in general. So words of the government are not always trusted by the people. After the DMG fiasco, 77% of the people in the area thinks things are going badly, and they blame the government more than DMG.

Add some mind-control techniques, and you got yourself something that acts like a cult, but is not a cult per se. There is no "leader" and there is no "dogma" (other than "_____ is great, join us.")

Conclusion

Pyramid schemes are illegal, as it leaves damage both financial and psychic. Members are basically brainwashed into believing in money and the scheme, and the conversion is subtle yet unmistakable.

It is important for all to be aware of such schemes, and alert authorities at first sign of trouble. The earlier you can get to the scheme, the less victims it will have.

There is no "Forever 27 Club", darnit!

2011-07-26T10:02:00.000-07:00

This whole thing was invented by a bunch of media sensationalists!

http://hubpages.com/hub/Forever-27-Club-and-Amy-Winehouse-is-the-curse-real-or-just-sensationalism

Mobile apps: do people honest don't expect people to fill the field?

2011-07-26T00:12:00.000-07:00

I am running Coolendar, an interesting hybrid calendar / todo mananger. it's great on the PC.

However, there's no smartphone version. You're supposed to use the "mobile" website.

So I logged into it via my Google account. That works.

However, the "filter by hash tag" doesn't work.

What's more, the field doesn't display all the content in that field. Scrolling is impossible.

WHO THE **** designed it? It's "optimized for tablets", apparently!

Why "Avoiding Negativity" is stupid, and people advocating it is also stupid

2011-07-17T10:20:00.000-07:00

Image via WikipediaThere are some so-called motivation coaches (esp. MLM coaches, which goes under various names, like "attraction coaches", "networking coaches", and so on), that advocate "avoid negativity". This can be seen on many websites. In fact, some MLMers have even named the people who wants to give MLMers a "reality check" "dream stealers".

And that is just a STUPID idea. It's like trying to eliminate PAIN from your body.

Without pain, you wouldn't know when to stop doing what you're doing. You would hold your hand over an open flame until your hand burned to a charcoal crisp, and you would not even flinch.

Without negativity, you wouldn't know when to stop doing what you're doing either! You would continue to invest time and money and energy into a lost cause until you're in so deep, you can't get out, and you are HAPPY doing so!

What you need to do is eliminate IRRATIONAL FEAR AND DOUBT, NOT ALL NEGATIVITY.

If you eliminate all negativity, you end up being reckless as you have no sense of danger.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Danger-of-Seeking-Positivity-and-Ignoring-Negativity

Did you ever read the "fine print" in those MLM 'contracts'?

2011-07-16T09:37:00.000-07:00

In any sort of business, there is always a contract or agreement: you agree to do this, in exchange, I agree to do that. In a job, you agree to work for me, I agree to pay you. It is no different in a MLM.

If there is contract, just "recruit!" then it's obviously a pyramid scheme.

But even if there is a contract, there are hidden clauses with which the company can just discard you like rag doll after it no longer needs you.

Here are some such hidden time bombs hidden in "independent distributor agreements".

Two more comments about MLM stupidity

2011-07-16T02:36:00.000-07:00

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

-- Carl Sagan, as quoted in Cosmos, PBS TV

When some people claim extraordinary things, they expect people to just believe them with simple claims (with NO evidence) or just a few bits of so-called evidence. This is especially true for MLM / Network Marketing. It seems every other MLM out there claim to make you immensely rich with virtually no effort.

Such claims of get-rich-quick is obviously an extraordinary claim, and thus, require extraordinary evidence. And such evidence is NEVER forthcoming. Most evidence falls into following categories:

* it's so easy! (i.e. I can do it, and so can you!)

It looks so easy on TV or in person, but did the speaker actually succeed?

* just look at all this money and goodies I got here!

Doesn't prove it's actually a success. Most luxuries can be rented.

* it's new and therefore it's good!

New isn't always good. New disease is bad.

* just believe me and I will make you rich!

So is the guy a cult leader or a businessman?

Here's some surprising (to some) statistics on a MLM company that will tell you who made money... and who did not.

Any one heard of YTB? aka Your Travel Biz? aka Zamzuu?

Here is the published figures on YTB, BY YTB, about who made money in their business in 2007, and who didn't.

http://www.ytb.com/downloads/YTB_IncomeDisclosure_2-8-08.pdf

For those of you who are challenged at math, or can't read charts, here's the simple and honest truth:

97% of reps made LESS THAN $2000 USD IN the ENTIRE 2007 under YTB, from the company's own numbers.

LESS THAN TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS IN THE ENTIRE ****ING YEAR.

The top 3 guys on top (obviously the founders) averaged 3 million EACH that year.

Yet every single one of these "reps" paid THOUSANDS into the system "buying" a travel franchise, so they thought.

YTB later changed its name to Zamzuu, was sued and forced out of Illinois and California and paid millions in damages, and is believed to be going bankrupt. (See below)

Related articles

How to use 48 Laws of Power for Evil (sort of)

2011-07-13T22:15:00.000-07:00

Cover of The 48 Laws of PowerThis is NOT a "how to", but rather, how scammers use 48 Laws of Power to gain control over you.

What is 48 Laws of Power? It is a set of "rules" written by Robert Greene and Joost Elffers condensed from a lot of interpersonal relation tips. Some of them are especially useful for fraudsters:

Law 3

Conceal your Intentions

Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions. If they have no clue what you are up to, they cannot prepare a defense. Guide them far enough down the wrong path, envelope them in enough smoke, and by the time they realize your intentions, it will be too late.

This is how pyramid fraudsters operate: lure people in with various promises of wealth, guide victims down the path, and by the time they realize the fraudster(s) have used them to suck in all FRIENDS AND FAMILY, it's too late (for them).

Law 4

Always Say Less than Necessary

When you are trying to impress people with words, the more you say, the more common you appear, and the less in control. Even if you are saying something banal, it will seem original if you make it vague, open-ended, and sphinxlike. Powerful people impress and intimidate by saying less. The more you say, the more likely you are to say something foolish.

Scammers will say things just enough to create the impression that they have said more. They will evoke imagery so you can draw the rest of the picture yourself. It's like "Inception", where the mind creates its own people populating the imaginary world. A certain travel scam was very careful in NEVER stating who their corporate officers were, but gave some misleading "admiral" and so on "office bearers" that other people have assumed to be corporate officers. In a different part of the scam, they deliberated misquoted Warren Buffett so make it seem as if the scam was owned by Warren Buffett when it was certainly not!

Law 6

Court Attention at all Cost

Everything is judged by its appearance; what is unseen counts for nothing. Never let yourself get lost in the crowd, then, or buried in oblivion. Stand out. Be conspicuous, at all cost. Make yourself a magnet of attention by appearing larger, more colorful, more mysterious, than the bland and timid masses.

Scammers always appear to be the very picture of wealth and power, driving fancy cars, owns private airplanes and villas, and so on. They paint a picture of success and implies they want to share their secret with you, at a price. They want your attention, and they will use various methods to get it, such as fake biographies, fake claim of alliances, misleading statements about endorsement or ownership, and so on.

The aforementioned travel scam show you members with loads of cash, posing in front of a new car they claimed was purchased with what they "earned" through this cam, plus supposed ability to get villas, corporate jets, luxury cars, and laptop computers. (To date, no one was EVER documented to have received any fo these things)

Law 7

Get others to do the Work for you, but Always Take the Credit

Use the wisdom, knowledge, and legwork of other people to further your own cause. Not only will such assistance save you valuable time and energy, it will give you a godlike aura of efficiency and speed. In the end your helpers will be forgotten and you will be remembered. Never do yourself what others can do for you.

Scammers are very careful in always crediting their "system" to be the reason for success, never the individual's ability to recruit and persuade. After all, they need to convince new victims that "anybody can replicate the success".

By repeating the unsupported opinion, the individual members, if they succeed, will believe the fiction and claim him/herself as "proof". if they failed, they will blame themselves for not believe in the system and somehow blame themselves for the failure. It is a particularly nasty trick.

Law 8

Make other People come to you – use Bait if Necessary

When you force the other person to act, you are the one in control. It is always better to make your opponent come to you, abandoning his own plans in the process. Lure him with fabulous gains – then attack. You hold the cards.

Lure people in, then pounce, that is the way a pyramid scheme works. Once the scammer had squeezed the victim dry of new prospects and money, they are given various excuses to be NOT paid.

The aforementioned travel scam banned in multiple countries is famous for repeatedly revising their own offer downwards. At first, it's $15000 if you "cycle", plus free 7-day 6-night stay at 5-star property AND companion domestic airfare immediately upon joining. Then 5-star became 3-5 stars. Then 15000 became $10000 (the other $5000 is some sort of travel voucher only to be redeemed for company events). Then the $10000 became eWallet only (with various fees for conversion and whatnot). Then the trip was changed to 4-day 3-night if you want a hotel. Then instead of free they are charging $150 for taxes and processing fees. But they've already got you, you pretty much have to play by their terms by then due to the "sunken cost" bias.

Law 10

Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky

You can die from someone else’s misery – emotional states are as infectious as disease. You may feel you are helping the drowning man but you are only precipitating your own disaster. The unfortunate sometimes draw misfortune on themselves; they will also draw it on you. Associate with the happy and fortunate instead.

When it come to scammers, they want people who are HAPPY being scammed. They don't want sad people or doubtful people. They want docile sheep who never ask questions, just do what they're told. In fact, they want HAPPY sheep who will go out and convince hesitant sheep to join.

Law 11

Learn to Keep People Dependent on You

To maintain your independence you must always be needed and wanted. The more you are relied on, the more freedom you have. Make people depend on you for their happiness and prosperity and you have nothing to fear. Never teach them enough so that they can do without you.

Some scammers are also "cult of personality" leaders: they will "lead" a group and convince all the members that whatever s/he said must be the truth, no matter how stupid or shady it is, and any doubters are stupid and ignorant. People soon became addicted to the scammer, and will do anything for him.

The aforementioned travel scam only release information through its spokesperson (some guy from India) and through some website announcements. By limiting control of information, the scam controls all its victims.

Law 12

Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm your Victim

One sincere and honest move will cover over dozens of dishonest ones. Open-hearted gestures of honesty and generosity bring down the guard of even the most suspicious people. Once your selective honesty opens a hole in their armor, you can deceive and manipulate them at will. A timely gift – a Trojan horse – will serve the same purpose.

The aforementioned scam is very good in releasing just enough information to appease the masses, by admitting to certain problems, often on conference calls and company announcements. They even promise to give people more time to redeem the offers because their system didn't work when promised... But they sure don't tell you about how many times they have lied and downsized the offers. Once you've invested, they keep you hooked with promises of reform and fix, until you realized they are just stringing you along.

Law 26

Keep Your Hands Clean

You must seem a paragon of civility and efficiency: Your hands are never soiled by mistakes and nasty deeds. Maintain such a spotless appearance by using others as scapegoats and cat’s-paws to disguise your involvement.

This especially applies to MLM and its illegal cousin, the pyramid scheme. The ones on the top benefit, but they are not the ones recruiting people. It's the people at the bottom who's actively recruiting, thus they are the ones going to jail. Indeed, the aforementioned scam have already had dozens arrested, some sentenced to jail around the world, yet it is still claiming high Alexa ranking and over 1 million members. The real leader of the scam is just flying here and there, giving speeches on the success of the scam and inspiring members to recruit more victims.

Law 27

Play on People’s Need to Believe to Create a Cultlike Following

People have an overwhelming desire to believe in something. Become the focal point of such desire by offering them a cause, a new faith to follow. Keep your words vague but full of promise; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking. Give your new disciples rituals to perform, ask them to make sacrifices on your behalf. In the absence of organized religion and grand causes, your new belief system will bring you untold power.

In the case of pyramid schemes, people need to believe there is a shortcut to financial success. By offering the fools a chance at a large sum of money, with "words vague but full of promise; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking", this scam was able to claim well over 1 million members, each of who paid $250 (or more) into the system. Indeed, many members are encouraged to buy multiple memberships.

Law 31

Control the Options: Get Others to Play with the Cards you Deal

The best deceptions are the ones that seem to give the other person a choice: Your victims feel they are in control, but are actually your puppets. Give people options that come out in your favor whichever one they choose. Force them to make choices between the lesser of two evils, both of which serve your purpose. Put them on the horns of a dilemma: They are gored wherever they turn.

Stringing people along with promises that keeps getting delayed forces them into a choice: stick with the scam and hope it will turned into a real business, or abandon it altogether and cut losses. Most people choose to do the former, known as the "sunken cost bias".

Victims of pyramid scheme, upon learning they are in one, often goes on a recruitment drive, intending to "earn their money back", instead of cutting their losses and move on. However, if the victim just cut their losses and leave, their money stays in the system. Either outcome benefit the pyramid scheme scammer.

Law 32

Play to People’s Fantasies

The truth is often avoided because it is ugly and unpleasant. Never appeal to truth and reality unless you are prepared for the anger that comes for disenchantment. Life is so harsh and distressing that people who can manufacture romance or conjure up fantasy are like oases in the desert: Everyone flocks to them. There is great power in tapping into the fantasies of the masses.

Fantasy of the masses is often about having plenty of money to live in style and luxury, and by playing to this fantasy known as "greed", scammers can instead suck you dry of money.

Every scam always show the fancy cars, big houses, villas, corporate jets, loads of cash... You get the idea.

Law 37

Create Compelling Spectacles

Striking imagery and grand symbolic gestures create the aura of power – everyone responds to them. Stage spectacles for those around you, then full of arresting visuals and radiant symbols that heighten your presence. Dazzled by appearances, no one will notice what you are really doing.

Similar to laws 6 and 8, and even law 32, scammers often hold seminars, conventions, and such. A scam in Asia is known to have booked entire trains to transport people to a seaside resort town and hired several popular singers to perform for the masses. The intent? Claim legitimacy and recruit more people for its pyramid scheme.

Law 43

Work on the Hearts and Minds of Others

Coercion creates a reaction that will eventually work against you. You must seduce others into wanting to move in your direction. A person you have seduced becomes your loyal pawn. And the way to seduce others is to operate on their individual psychologies and weaknesses. Soften up the resistant by working on their emotions, playing on what they hold dear and what they fear. Ignore the hearts and minds of others and they will grow to hate you.

Similar to laws 31 and 32, instead of forcing victims to do things, you have them dig their own hole, so deep they can't get out. You prey on their for their weakness for money, and you convince them to give you money so they can receive more money, but what they do instead is convince OTHER people to give you money in exchange for a tiny share of what you receive.

Law 45

Preach the Need for Change, but Never Reform too much at Once

Everyone understands the need for change in the abstract, but on the day-to-day level people are creatures of habit. Too much innovation is traumatic, and will lead to revolt. If you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things. If change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement on the past.

When people complain about the problems in the scam, change just enough to silence the critics, and NEVER acknowledge the changes.

The aforementioned scam, after two years of operation, completely revamped their FAQ. Previously it claimed that "You do not need to sell any products." Now the FAQ states that "You do need to sell products". However, the website gave NO INDICATION on what these products are. The compensation package about getting paid through recruitment remains unchanged... only "cycling" the matrix is needed to earn the big money, and cycling is just recruiting, not selling any products.

Law 48

Assume Formlessness

By taking a shape, by having a visible plan, you open yourself to attack. Instead of taking a form for your enemy to grasp, keep yourself adaptable and on the move. Accept the fact that nothing is certain and no law is fixed. The best way to protect yourself is to be as fluid and formless as water; never bet on stability or lasting order. Everything changes.

The aforementioned scam is very careful in leaving itself extremely vague, and thus, when confronted, have virtually nothing to say. Corporate officers? Never listed. Actual location? Lists a couple, refused to acknowledge whether they are virtual offices or not. Leaves it up to the downlines /members / distributors to invent excuses / explanations which are neither confirmed nor denied.

Don't fall victim to these evil uses of 48 Law of Power.

Egotistic Non-Doctor claims she knows more about vaccination than anybody

2011-07-11T10:12:00.000-07:00

Anti-vaccination people actually set up a booth at babies expo trying to promote their pseudo-scientific beliefs. What gall! Here's two of those fraudsters exposed on Australian 60 Minutes.

The white-hair one on the right is Viera Scheibner. She insists on being referred to ad Dr. Scheibner. What she doesn't tell you is that her PhD is in micropaleontology, i.e. study of little fossils. That's right, she has no medical training other than, by her own admission, a nursing course when she was young.

The woman on the left, Bronwyn Hancock, is even more idiotic. She's web developer and nothing more. She was once quoted as saying that there was no "shaking baby syndrome", and all shaking baby deaths were caused by vaccines.

Watch this segment and see how these fraudsters blame the parents for their child's death. Viera was quoted ON CAMERA saying that the parents of the baby that died of pertussis (whooping cough) killed the baby because they let the doctors immunize the baby for hepatitis B, which somehow made the baby more vulnerable to pertussis. When asked where is the proof of such, and whether could she be wrong, she walked out of the interview.

The danger of vaccine refusal is erosion of herd immunity.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Herd-Immunity-Why-NOT-Vaccinating-Your-Children-Can-Hurt-Other-Children

Related articles

Why Do People use Pictures Not of Them in Social Profiles Any Way?

2011-07-09T15:16:00.000-07:00

People are picking pictures of criminals, porn stars, and so on, as their social media profile pix.

Don't they know they look stupid doing so?

http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-choose-your-Profile-Photo-for-Social-Media-a-list-of-dos-and-do-not-dos

Are Conspiracy Theorists More Receptive to Baloney?

2011-07-01T07:50:00.000-07:00

Image via WikipediaConsider this... Conspiracy Theorists do not accept the "common" view of the events that happened. For whatever personal reasons, they chose to instead embrace a theory / world view that is vastly different (and frequently, completely illogical, when all evidence have been considered).

So it is not too surprising that some people consider them to be prime material for scams, is it? After all, scams require you to pretty much abandon logic and common sense, and instead believe baloney like "shortcut to wealth"

Let me introduce you to this funny as heck item: UFO MLM (real name)

Here is its entry on MoneyMakerGroup:

http://www.moneymakergroup.com/Ufo-mlm-Ufo-mlminfo-t298843.html

"Don't take this for granted folks, the Conspiracy market is well over 1 BILLION people STRONG!! & NOT GOING AWAY any time soon, we're the first & ONLY Co. in the world to tackle this massive niche market from an MLM and a social networking perspective, not to mention this market continues to grow, & With What we have planed, we'll wake them up & recruit them in record Numbers."

Fortunately, this UFO MLM didn't live long. It started in 2009 and died in 2010. Apparently, not even conspiracy theorists like the taste of this baloney.

Hilarious Exchange: some moron thinks lying on LinkedIn is a right

2011-06-26T01:06:00.000-07:00

LinkVaark loves highlighting the morons who put up fake pictures (actors, actresses, models, etc.) as their profile pix. Recently, he found a real gem... Someone put up picture of a doll, really, a high-end display doll.

Then apparently this moron start posting comments asking the pix to be removed, then claimed "that doesn't mean the profile's a fake! There's nothing against it!" Clearly, the guy didn't read LinkedIn rules... Below is a shortened version.

Read the whole thing (and see the actual picture that caused the hilarity) over at Linkvarrk:

http://linkvaark.com/2011/06/16/linkedin-fake-profile-mucho-bizarro/#comments

Got too much **** email from your friends? Forward them this video

2011-06-24T20:55:00.000-07:00

Allegedly by Al Yankovich, this is a beautiful satire

http://videosift.com/video/Stop-Forwarding-that-Crap-to-Me-Al-Yankovic

Baloney Detection Kit used on pseudo-MLM scams

2011-06-12T09:28:00.000-07:00

The Baloney Detection Kit by Michael Shermer I highlighted earlier can be applied to other types of baloney as well, not just pseudo-science. Here's its application go pseudo-MLM or pseudo-economics (i.e. financial fraud and claims).

http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-apply-the-Baloney-Test-as-test-of-legitimacy-to-any-MLM-Opportunity

Fake Fuel Saver Devices: More Popular Than Ever

2011-06-05T19:15:00.000-07:00

In the times of high fuel prices (in San Francisco, average price of regular unleaded is about 4.25 per gallon) more of these alleged fuel saver devices make their way to the market.

They can take variety of shapes and forms:

gas pills that you add to your gas tank
alleged "power conditioners" you plug into your electrical circuit (usually cigarette lighter)
fuel conditioner you clamp onto a fuel hose, usually a magnet of some sort
air improver that somehow makes your air intake more efficient

They are ALL bull****. Why? Simple logic: if ANY of these devices actually save any fuel, don't you think places like taxi companies or shuttle van companies would be buying as much of it as they can? They spend far more time on the road consuming far more fuel than you ever will, and thus they would benefit far more from these devices than you can. Yet all of the alleged testimonials are from individuals.

In fact, everybody with ANY sort of scientific test have REPEATED busted ANY SORT of these fuel saver device claims. In 2005, Popular Mechanics tested a series of these products and found most of them REDUCED engine power and WORSENED fuel economy. Mythbusters also did a test and came up with similar results.

Gas Pills / Treatments / Etc. -- FAKE

Any sort of pill, liquid, or whatever you add to the gas tank will simply be burned, but fuel efficiency will not be affected by a TINY bit of chemical (remember, you have a 10-25 gallon tank, and how many pills or ounces did you put in?)

There are gas treatments, such as STABIL gas stabilizers that allows prevents gasoline from 'going bad' in vehicles that will be left alone for a long time. There are also "injector cleaners" that you can add to gas tank to clean your fuel injectors. However, they don't actually save any fuel.

Power Conditioner -- VERY FAKE

At least one power conditioner was revealed to be a total fake: its internal circuits are just stuff you can put together from parts at Radio Shack for $5 and have NO effect whatsoever on your car's electrical system.

Furthermore, the ignition circuit is usually isolated from the accessories circuit in the car, which would include the 12V aux power plug (i.e. cigarette lighter plug). Ignition is controlled by engine computer, plug wires, and the spark plugs themselves. Thus, anything plugged into the socket inside the cabin is unlikely to affect ANY of the engine electronics.

Even if somehow such a device can influence the spark plugs, a brighter spark does NOT automatically mean better power, as the ignition timing must be changed as well, and the amount of fuel injected, and so on. The computer must be re-calibrated as well.

You'd be better off replacing the spark plugs at your next tune-up. THAT actually can give you SLIGHTLY more horsepower... maybe 1-3 HP.

Magnetic Fuel Conditioner -- FAKE

Any sort of magnetic "fuel conditioner" is even more of a snake oil, since oil is NOT magnetic in any way, not is combustion. This supposedly "alignment" of particles is pure bull****. In fact, there is a full section on "magnetic scams" here that supposedly works on water, gas, fuel, and more!

If you believe in this sort of bull****, you can buy a more expensive "heavy-duty" version too. And I have a bridge to sell you.

Air Enhancer -- FAKE

Any sort of "air enhancer" is also bull****. Simple logic would tell you that the LESS obstructions you have in the air passage, the better the air will flow. Instead, these bull**** devices claim somehow that their devices, when added in the air intake as additional obstruction, will somehow make the air flow BETTER instead of worse, by generating vortices. WHY? You want a SMOOTH air flow into the engine!

There are real "air enhancers"... they are called turbochargers and superchargers and costs over one thousand dollars (more if you need installation). There is also K&N Filter and cone-style air intakes (sometimes called cold air intakes even though not all are). They work by providing a LESS restricted air intake path than the stock air filter. But adding something into the intake and expect that to improve air? You gotta be kidding me.

Conclusion

Don't get taken by these bull**** devices, even if they spent big bucks on sponsorships and are sold at major auto parts store. They don't work. End of story.

Why do people keep so much **** around?

2011-06-04T18:31:00.000-07:00

Ever seen "hoarders"? They keep so much stuff around they are afraid to throw away ANYTHING. Everything can be useful. thousands of newspaper nobody ever reads, thousands of plastic bags saved some elsewhere... etc. etc.

Here's my philosophy on what to keep (and what not to):

Is it useful NOW or today? Put it near you.
Is it useful in a week or so? Put it in a drawer somewhere.
Is it useful in a month or so? Put it in a closet.
Is it useful in a year or so? Put it in storage.

The remaining are unpractical stuff, like momentos, decorations, and such. So you decide whether you should really keep any of them.

If there are too much of the unpractical stuff, you should toss them as much as possible, or put them on display (on a wall? shelf?) so it doesn't take up space and look like clutter.

How NOT to debate: assume other guy's insulting you

2011-06-03T21:41:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

EDIT: Michael Shermer

EDITOR'S NOTE: this is a rant, against a certain individual and a blog that doesn't even belong to him, who will remain unnamed. He is free to insult me on that blog-that-does-not-belong-to-him. He has discovered this little rant, and has "responded" by again, distorting what I said/wrote through his own filters.

If you read my earlier blog posts you'll see that a certain anti-fraud crusader had somehow concluded that because I didn't join him in denouncing his most hated scam (hint: starts with A) I must somehow be against him.

Recently, he started denouncing some OTHER scam in Asia, a fake survey company. So I offered an olive branch, posting a comment that basically said great job, don't you see that there are scams even MORE evil than your most hated scam? "Most hated scam" actually have products to sell, whereas this scam has nothing, similar to that other scam (which is what got our verbal war started). I then cited Michael Shermer, head of Skeptic Society, and his 10 rules to detect baloney.

Instead of taking the olive branch, it was slapped away. According to this "crusader", I had somehow assumed that he and his readers don't know about Michael Shermer, which is an insult to his intelligence. In his own words:

Typically, Mr. Chang assumes that we must have no knowledge of Michael Shermer.

He had assumed that I had assumed that he doesn't know about Michael Shermer.

WTF?!

Then he proceeds to insult me about my lack of intelligence in order to understand his point of view, and proceed to call me fraud sympathizer. Again, in his own words:

However, Mr. Chang doesn't attempt to refute the quantifiable evidence that (despite the 'AXXXX' organization's own propaganda) during the previous 50+ years, virtually no products, or services, have been regularly retailed to the public for a profit by any of the tens of millions of ill-informed, and insolvent, individuals around the world, who have been churned through the economically-suicidal 'AXXXX' closed-market.

The problem here is the guy completely misses the point. My "olive branch" was pointing out a scam that pretends to be MLM, but sold nothing. Clearly, it must be more evil than this "AXXXX" alleged scam that actually sells something. He completely ignores the point and went on to RANT about the evilness of "AXXXX". Again, because I didn't join him in attacking this AXXXX....

With a level of naivety which beggars belief, Mr. Chang apparently seriously expects your free-thinking readers, to follow his example, set aside 50+ years of quantifiable evidence and blindly believe the fanciful baloney that, because 'AXXXX' has products and services, the organization can simply oblige its adherents, henceforth regularly to retail this effectively-unsaleable wampum to the public for a profit.

Again, this guy missed the point. The difference is while all these 50 years of evidence simply proves that it HAD NOT BEEN. It doesn't prove that it CANNOT. He was arguing about something else entirely.

Besides, I wasn't even talking about that AXXXX scam! I was talking about something else!

It is clear at this point any sort of olive branch would be utterly wasted. A simple name reference was construed as an insult to his intelligence, by making DOUBLE assumptions. Who's being insulting now? Then my reference was turned into a strawman attack, falsely attributing a viewpoint to me that I do NOT hold, and is in fact, irrelevant.

LESSON LEARNED: Don't talk to fanatics, even if they have their hearts at the right places. They will only drive you crazy.

Fanatics act as if they have huge chips on their shoulders, so they are basically out to pick fights with you, provoke you at every opportunity. It's either join them or be their enemy. It's false dilemma.

EDIT: I see Mr. Brear has decided that this article had been written specifically against him and has responded in kind on someone else's blog, instead of commenting here.

How can people be this dumb? You don't PAY to take surveys!

2011-05-22T06:47:00.000-07:00

Apparently up to two million people (most in India) signed up with a company called "SpeakAsia" where they pay for a 'subscription' to a survey e-Magazine, which entitles them to take surveys and get paid. However, the participants get paid a LOT MORE if they recruit MORE people (who also pay for the subscriptions). We're talking $120 for 6 months (or $20 a month) before you make a SINGLE dollar, and you need to pay $60 to take a test to demonstrate your ability to actually take a survey. (WTF?!)

Now a TV expose was done on them, and at least FIVE Indian regulatory agencies are investigating SpeakAsia for everything from tax evasion to plain old "pyramid scheme".

http://hubpages.com/hub/SpeakAsiaOnline-dissecting-another-international-scam-under-investigation-in-India-and-Bangladesh

Baloney Detection Kit by Michael Shermer

2011-05-08T19:25:00.000-07:00

Earlier, I revived the Hemmingway "crap detector". Turns out Carl Sagan had a similar idea, which he called Baloney Detection Kit. This was revived by Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer. It was printed in Scientific American, and is reproduced below:

Baloney Detection How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience
By MICHAEL SHERMER

When lecturing on science and pseudoscience at colleges and universities, I am inevitably asked, after challenging common beliefs held by many students,``Why should we believe you'' My answer:``You shouldn't''
I then explain that we need to check things out for ourselves and, short of that, at least to ask basic questions that get to the heart of the validity of any claim. This is what I call baloney detection, in deference to Carl Sagan, who coined the phrase Baloney Detection Kit. To detect baloney--that is, to help discriminate between science and pseudoscience--I suggest10 questions to ask when encountering any claim.
             1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
Pseudoscientists often appear quite reliable, but when examined closely, the facts and figures they cite are distorted, taken out of context or occasionally even fabricated. Of course, everyone makes some mistakes. And as historian of science Daniel Kevles showed so effectively in his book The Baltimore Affair, it can be hard to detect a fraudulent signal within the background noise of sloppiness that is a normal part of the scientific process. The question is, Do the data and interpretations show signs of intentional distortion? When an independent committee established to investigate potential fraud scrutinized a set of research notes in Nobel laureate David Baltimore's laboratory, it revealed a surprising number of mistakes. Baltimore was exonerated because his lab's mistakes were random and nondirectional.
             2. Does this source often make similar claims?
Pseudoscientists have a habit of going well beyond the facts. Flood geologists (creationists who believe that Noah's flood can account for many of the earth's geologic formations) consistently make outrageous claims that bear no relation to geological science. Of course, some great thinkers do frequently go beyond the data in their creative speculations. Thomas Gold of Cornell University is notorious for his radical ideas, but he has been right often enough that other scientists listen to what he has to say. Gold proposes, for example, that oil is not a fossil fuel at all but the by-product of a deep, hot biosphere (microorganisms living at unexpected depths within the crust). Hardly any earth scientists with whom I have spoken think Gold is right, yet they do not consider him a crank. Watch out for a pattern of fringe thinking that consistently ignores or distorts data.
             3. Have the claims been verified by another source?
Typically pseudoscientists make statements that are unverified or verified only by a source within their own belief circle. We must ask, Who is checking the claims, and even who is checking the checkers? The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for instance, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong. It was that they announced their spectacular discovery at a press conference before other laboratories verified it. Worse, when cold fusion was not replicated, they continued to cling to their claim. Outside verification is crucial to good science.
             4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?
An extraordinary claim must be placed into a larger context to see how it fits. When people claim that the Egyptian pyramids and the Sphinx were built more than 10,000 years ago by an unknown, advanced race, they are not presenting any context for that earlier civilization. Where are the rest of the artifacts of those people? Where are their works of art, their weapons, their clothing, their tools, their trash? Archaeology simply does not operate this way.
             5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence
             been sought?
This is the confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek confirmatory evidence and to reject or ignore disconfirmatory evidence. The confirmation bias is powerful, pervasive and almost impossible for any of us to avoid. It is why the methods of science that emphasize checking and rechecking, verification and replication, and especially attempts to falsify a claim, are so critical.

When exploring the borderlands of science, we often face a ``boundary problem'' of where to draw the line between science and pseudoscience. The boundary is the line of demarcation between geographies of knowledge, the border defining countries of claims. Knowledge sets are fuzzier entities than countries, however, and their edges are blurry. It is not always clear where to draw the line. Last month I suggested five questions to ask about a claim to determine whether it is legitimate or baloney. Continuing with the baloney-detection questions, we see that in the process we are also helping to solve the boundary problem of where to place a claim.

             6. Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant's conclusion or to a
             different one?
The theory of evolution, for example, is ``proved'' through a convergence of evidence from a number of independent lines of inquiry. No one fossil, no one piece of biological or paleontological evidence has ``evolution'' written on it; instead tens of thousands of evidentiary bits add up to a story of the evolution of life. Creationists conveniently ignore this confluence, focusing instead on trivial anomalies or currently unexplained phenomena in the history of life.
             7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have
             these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?
A clear distinction can be made between SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) scientists and UFOlogists. SETI scientists begin with the null hypothesis that ETIs do not exist and that they must provide concrete evidence before making the extraordinary claim that we are not alone in the universe. UFOlogists begin with the positive hypothesis that ETIs exist and have visited us, then employ questionable research techniques to support that belief, such as hypnotic regression (revelations of abduction experiences), anecdotal reasoning (countless stories of UFO sightings), conspiratorial thinking (governmental cover-ups of alien encounters), low-quality visual evidence (blurry photographs and grainy videos), and anomalistic thinking (atmospheric anomalies and visual misperceptions by eyewitnesses).
             8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely
             denying the existing explanation?
This is a classic debate strategy--criticize your opponent and never affirm what you believe to avoid criticism. It is next to impossible to get creationists to offer an explanation for life (other than ``God did it''). Intelligent Design (ID) creationists have done no better, picking away at weaknesses in scientific explanations for difficult problems and offering in their stead. ``ID did it.'' This stratagem is unacceptable in science.
             9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as
             the old explanation did?
Many HIV/AIDS skeptics argue that lifestyle causes AIDS. Yet their alternative theory does not explain nearly as much of the data as the HIV theory does. To make their argument, they must ignore the diverse evidence in support of HIV as the causal vector in AIDS while ignoring the significant correlation between the rise in AIDS among hemophiliacs shortly after HIV was inadvertently introduced into the blood supply.
             10. Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?
All scientists hold social, political and ideological beliefs that could potentially slant their interpretations of the data, but how do those biases and beliefs affect their research in practice? Usually during the peer-review system, such biases and beliefs are rooted out, or the paper or book is rejected.

Clearly, there are no foolproof methods of detecting baloney or drawing the boundary between science and pseudoscience. Yet there is a solution: science deals in fuzzy fractions of certainties and uncertainties, where evolution and big bang cosmology may be assigned a 0.9 probability of being true, and creationism and UFOs a 0.1 probability of being true. In between are borderland claims: we might assign superstring theory a 0.7 and cryonics a 0.2. In all cases, we remain open-minded and flexible, willing to reconsider our assessments as new evidence arises. This is, undeniably, what makes science so fleeting and frustrating to many people; it is, at the same time, what makes science the most glorious product of the human mind.

             The Author:
             Michael Shermer is founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and author of
            The Borderlands of Science.

from the November & December 2001 issues of Scientific American

Here is also a video version:

Different News, Different Details

2011-05-03T22:45:00.000-07:00

Image via WikipediaRecently news broke that two seniors were caught growing pot, and police only found this when neighbors reported that two men appeared to have performed an home invasion robbery. Police arrived, found no car, broken door. They went inside, found pot growing operation.

This is where reporting got very hazy, as there are multiple reports, and while the major parts match, the details do not.

San Francisco Chronicle's Report -- got pictures, but no idea where were the suspects arrested or what lead them to the suspects
San Jose Mercury News Report -- says one of the robbery suspects is linked to another growhouse busted two weeks ago, but no details. A second report said they were not home at the time.
KRON4 San Francisco News Report -- says one of the robbery suspects is linked to another growhouse with 540 plants
San Bruno Police Log of that day : Robbery occured on April 29th, 2011 10:30PM, initially reported as potential home invasion

So you have to piece the information together from separate reports.

Invasion was 29-APR-2011 2230 hours roughly, two men broken down door, then left after few minutes inside
Address was given as city of San Bruno, 2300 block of Valleywood Dr.
Neighbors called 911 and reported possible home invasion.
Police arrived and found broken front door. They saw pot plants through broken door, called in narcs. They also put APB on vehicle and two suspects.
Suspects caught in South San Francisco soon after.
Search of vehicle produced 12000 in cash, baggies for pot, (but no pot), and 7 ecxtasy pills.
One of the suspects in car was linked to another grow house busted by narcs 2 weeks prior.
Sometime between the invasion and today, the two seniors, suspected pot grower of house that got broken into, was arrested.
Nobody got bail (which was set at $100K EACH)

If you check the various news reports, none of them gave the full story. This was pieced together by reading through all the available reports. Why can't they just put in all the info at the same place? Sheesh.

3 Keys to Creativity Found

2011-04-30T20:52:00.000-07:00

The 3 keys to creativity is actually very simple:

Educate: fill your brain with a lot of other people's ideas

Stimulate: add some stimulation to your brain, could be endorphins, stimulants, or just different environments

Delimitate: add some limits to your thinking, like remove material, limit tech level and so on.

Let the mind sit and percolate, and you may get an invention.

http://hubpages.com/hub/3-Keys-to-Creativity-Stimulate-Educate-and-Delimitate

Confirmation Bias: the hole you dig for yourself

2011-04-29T18:44:00.000-07:00

Confirmation bias is a universal problem, and has been observed as far back as classical Greek periods. Basically, it is a tendency of the mind to seek evidence to reinforce existing thinking... Or in other words: digging a hole for yourself.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Confirmation-Bias-What-is-it-How-it-affects-You-and-How-to-Deal-With-It?done

Hey, we're on the SAME SIDE! (Part 2)

2011-04-22T18:40:00.000-07:00

Interesting development. Someone using OpenID of ibofightback (or as Mr. Brear said, IBOFB) posted a comment that claimed he had been "debating" Mr. Brear for a long time. (I checked the blog linked and it had not been updated since 2007!)

The existence of that comment lead Mr. Brear somehow to think IBOFB is in league with me in support of Amway. Another false dilemma: you're either with me or against me.

It is almost as if I'm stuck between two factions while trying to maintain my neutrality: because I truly do NOT know which way to rule on Amway.

On one side, you have Mr. Brear, who is very obviously against Amway, repeating at various times that Amway is a cult and pyramid scheme that should have NEVER been legalized.

On the other hand, you have various Amway defenders (okay, actually, just one, who didn't even bother posting ON Shyam's blog) trying "debunk" the amount of hate directed against Amway.

And somehow I am caught in the middle. It is a very strange experience.

Mr. Brear and Shyam clearly wants me to join them, and when I stated I have not studied Amway to pass judgement, they turned hostile. To quote Mr. Brear:

"Thus, when someone like Mr. Chang confidently announces on this Blog that there is nothing inherently fraudulent in, or cultic about, 'Multi-Level Marketing' and then goes on to repeat 'Amway's' reality-inverting propaganda that the problem with the 'Amway' system has been a minority of rogue leaders acting against the organization's own code of ethics, and teaching some 'distributors' to recruit and consume and not to sell the products and, then selling 'tools', my reaction to his ignorance and naivety is hardly surprising."

To translate Mr. Brear:

a) Chang said: "Multi-level marketing is not inherently fraudulent or cultish"
b) Amway said the same thing
thus
c) Chang must be a supporter of Amway

Is that a logical conclusion, leading from a) + b) to c)?

The answer is no: because 1) it could be a coincidence 2) experts said it too

One of MLM's most ardent critics, Robert L. Fitzpatrick, wrote on his website: "My own evaluation has led me to see that, with rare exceptions, the MLM industry is mostly composed of pyramid operations." (http://www.falseprofits.com/IsMLMLegal.html)

Note the words "with rare exceptions", so the system itself is NOT inherently broken. It's the compensation package details that pushes the thing into 'scam'. However, it seem to be right on the edge, and needs very little tipping to send it over the abyss, and most MLMs, according to this critic, are pyramid schemes.

Is MLM inherently flawed? In my opinion, yes. It relies too much on "leadership" and "person to person" connections, resulting in almost cultish behavior (in fact, Mannatech, a MLM, is classified as a cult in New Zealand).

If MLM beyond salvation? No. Like Mr. Fitzpatrick, I believe there are some MLMs that are operating legally and ethically. And no, I don't know which ones. My specialty is on TVI Express, a scam that pretends to be a MLM, by borrowing all the WORST practices of a MLM, and making it a truly evil scam.

So, Mr. Brear, we really *are* on the same side. If only you will see that...

Hey, we're on the SAME SIDE!

2011-04-20T00:54:00.000-07:00

Image via WikipediaRecently, I seem to have gone into some sort of a "debate" on the merits of Amway with a guy called David Brear on another blog called CorporateFraudWatch.blogspot.com

The comments started calmly enough... I was thanked for bringing attention to the scam known as TVI Express. However, here Mr. Brear calls TVI Express "Amway Copy Cat".

So I posted a few comments thanking them.

Then David Brear goes on claiming I am some sort of expert, then ascribe some sort of a conspiracy group behind TVI Express. Quote: "Kasey Chang is undoubtedly a world authority on 'business opportunity' fraud in general, and the 'TVI Express' racket in particular"

So I posted what I have on the "mastermind" behind TVI Express, Tarun Trikha.

David Brear, however, is completely fixated on Amway, as he immediately starts pointing out how Tarun Trikha seem to be using Amway cult tactics.

I pointed out that TVI Express is far more of a scam than Amway ever could be. Amway at least HAVE some products, while TVI Express have no products AT ALL. Thus, Amway *could* be operated legally and ethically if one chooses to do so.

Then the blog owner, Shyam pointed out that an Indian court had recently ruled that Amway India violated the Indian version of the anti-pyramid laws.

So I replied that I am not familiar with Indian law, and one should be concentrating on the true scams such as TVI Express, instead of something that *may* still yet operate legitimately, such as Amway.

That comment was not well received by Mr. David Brear. Apparently, my failure to join him in the wholesale condemnation of Amway (and probably the entire MLM industry) had made me his enemy, as his tone turned downright hostile. In not so many words, he called me an Amway apologist, claimed that I was trying to defend Amway cult and all that.

So I repeated my comment, that compared to TVI Express, Amway is quite benign. I even pointed him to Robert L. Fitzpatrick's "False Profits" blog. That's a real anti-pyramid crusader.

That's not enough to appease David Brear though. He claims I was being condescending, that I assumed they don't know about Mr. Fitzpatrick, then goes into some conspiracy about how the US government condones MLM to scam people around the world. Then he links up religious right to the MLM industry.

Frankly, I have NO position on Amway. It has been operating legally in the US (and elsewhere) for DECADES. What Amway does in INDIA, frankly, is none of my business. I have not studied Amway in any way, shape, or form, except peripherally as part of studying up on TVI Express, and how TVI Express scam CANNOT be multi-level marketing. As Amway basically defined what is legal MLM in the US, I know it "somewhat", nowhere well enough to defend against Mr. Brear's tirade that essentially said "you're either with us (i.e. against Amway) or against us."

So why can't Mr. Brear see that we're on the SAME SIDE, AGAINST FRAUD AND ABUSE? What's with the "you're with us or against us" attitude?

What Mr. Brear have... is a reading comprehension problem.

I wrote that Amway *can* be operated ethically, by selling stuff, and ignore the cultish ways like buying all those training packages and recruiting people. (You can recruit a few who are good marketers / sellers) and I meant that.

However, it appears that Mr. Brear didn't read that. What he actually read was "Amway IS ethical", which is clearly NOT what I wrote. I am well aware of some of the accusations regarding Amway "cult" and related companies,like Quixtar, as one cannot help to read some when searching for MLM abuse examples. Confession: I *have* been recruited for Quixtar and I refused. They are horribly annoying.

Thus, please drop that "you're with me or against me" attitude. It makes you sound like a fanatic.

How to spot fake profiles on LinkedIn

2011-04-19T14:07:00.000-07:00

Five areas of problems that would indicate a fake profile (or a badly written one)

Photo Problems

Photo problems are with the profile photo itself.

Photos that seem to be way too professional... or UN-professional

Photos that are too "posed" are clearly suspect. Use TinEye.com on it and you can often find where it was lifted from.

ex: that photo of "Jessica Trot" to the right... Is that a pose a professional would show people? TinEye revealed that this is actually an amateur model in Russia who's not afraid to show a bit more skin than that picture.

Obvious Stock Photo

I've seen profile pics that still have the stockphoto website watermark
Clearly implausible photo

ex: Julia Cute claims to be from Pakistan, but "her" picture is obviously Chinese
Obvious Star Photo

Many fake profiles used movie stars, TV stars, sports stars, and more

Read the whole thing at

http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-spot-fake-profiles-on-LinkedIn-and-other-social-networking-sites

When people can't tell the planes apart...

2011-04-17T21:39:00.000-07:00

Image via WikipediaThen you have people identifying a Sukhoi as an... American F/A-18.

http://cheezburger.com/View/4666334976

Original here:

http://www.ewallpapers.eu/Aircrafts-Planes/Military/f-18-super-hornet-wallpaper.html

And here's a link to a real F/A-18

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3607/3653447871_80fd21d17c.jpg

How to Be Expert in ANY Subject: Do it a lot

2011-04-09T09:40:00.000-07:00

Image via WikipediaHere's how to be expert in ANYTHING:

The point is clear: expertise is learned, not born. In fact, an educator in Hungary, Laszlo Polgar, decided to do an experiment on his own children. He has three daughters, and he home-schooled them in chess. He started encouraging all three daughters to learn chess, play chess, and become VERY good in chess, taking them to tournaments and such. The result is one international master and two grandmasters... the strongest chess-playing siblings in history.

http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Master-Any-Subject-and-be-an-Expert-Genius-in-Anything

A short history of San Francisco Chinatown (repost)

2011-04-02T11:11:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

First Chinese immigrants, 2 man and 1 woman, arrived in San Francisco in 1848 onboard the American freighter "Eagle". They were recorded in local records as "Celestials".

In 1849, gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill north of San Francisco. The news spread like wildfire, starting the California gold rush of 1849. The news also spread across the ocean back to China, inspiring may residents of Taishan and Zhongshan, provinces of Guandong, the coastal province, to emigrate to the US in the next 100 years. Indeed, San Francisco's Chinese name today is "Old Gold Mountain" (the new Gold Mountain is in Alaska, in case you are wondering).

Unfortunately, the few that arrived do not speak English, and ended up mainly as railroad workers. Initially the railroad companies were very reluctant to hire non-whites, but when the Irish railroad workers went on strike, protesting lack of liquor, one company hired Chinese laborers, who turned out to be very hardworking. Eventually, up to 50% of all railroad builders were Asian, until there were no more railroads to build.

Chinese proved to be such hard workers, that the State of California deemed to pass a tax specifically on the Chinese, known as the "Anti-Coolie tax" of 1862, where each Chinese worker is taxed at $2.50 per day, and tax collectors have the authority to seize the person's property and sell it off in 30 minutes if the person does not pay up. Please remember, this is 1862.

The idea of Chinatown at the current location was not a nice decision. At the time, "downtown" is towards the water, i.e. current day piers and Fisherman's Wharf. One of the worst spots in town, known as "Barbary Coast" (after the pirate infested spot in the Carribean), is at the corner of Broadway and Columbus. It's bad enough that the San Francisco Police Department had the Central Branch just one block away, on Vallejo street. So where do you want the Chinese out of sight? Put them BEHIND the bad spot, away from the pier. Thus, the current day location of Chinatown.

And Chinatown is quite small, hemmed in on all four sides. To the north it is limited by "North Beach" (little Italy). To the east it's right on the edge of Financial District. To the west it is encroaching on Nob Hill, and to the south it's hemmed in by the tunnel and Union Square. One way Chinatown dealt with this is by creating alleys, basically even smaller streets between buildings. Many of the alleys are still here today.

You may have wondered why Chinese seem to be working in restaurants, or laundries, or as laborers. The truth is, the laws and other merchants don't permit them to do much else. At that time, only Chinese would eat in Chinese restaurants, and everybody needs laundry done. It wasn't until turn of the century that some of the restrictions were lifted. Fishing, and shrimping were allowed. Indeed, sun-dried shrimp is a Chinese delicacy, and San Francisco shrimp-fisherman exported hundreds of tons of dried shrimp back to China as some of the best dried shrimp available anywhere. Unfortunately, nowadays, with the Bay waters populated, only ONE shrimp fisherman is left up north.

Back to history... With the economy worsening post-Gold Rush, xenophobia is on the rise. In 1872, a panic on the stock market lead to full blown race riots and some parts of Chinatown were burned by angry mobs, who claimed that Chinese were stealing their jobs. In 1882, US Congress passed the Chinese Exclusionary Act, marking the Chinese as the ONLY specific race to warrant a law passed by US congress to limit immigration. The act was extended, and extended again, and made permanent, and was not repealed until 1943, in the middle of WW2. Other immigration acts, such as the Geary Act, restricted Chinese immigration to very low levels, and in theory, to single males only, though wealthy merchants may be able to get an exemption to get their whole family over.

The 1906 Earthquake and fire leveled much of San Francisco, and Chinatown was completely gutted. Many in city hall wanted to move Chinatown south to Hunters Point, perhaps as far as Daly City, or just erase it altogether, so that they can take the land and absorb it into Financial district. However, the local merchants, now united as Chinese Chamber of Commerce, along with the Chinese Government, and other local interests, complained loudly that the city relented. And Chinatown was rebuilt in the same location.

Most Chinese immigrants were processed on Angel Island (now a state park). Unlike Ellis Island to the East where immigrants are usually only held a week, immigrants on Angel Island can be held for several months, perhaps even over a year. They were interrogated closely in order to authenticate their identity. The barracks were the immigrants lived was recently restored and preserved as a historical monument.

Post WW2 saw a population boom in Chinatown, due to several factors. The repeal of Chinese Exclusionary Act, plus the passage of the War Brides Act, allowed many Chinese-American veterans to bring their wives to live in the US. Later, US Supreme Court ruled that it is was unconstitutional for property owners to deed their rights so that certain groups were excluded. Thus, this opened up many properties to be purchased by Chinese Americans. As Chinatown is so constricting, many moved to other parts of San Francisco, which lead to establishment of unofficial secondary Chinatowns, such as Clement Street (3rd Ave to 12th Ave), Irving St. (20th Ave to 28th Ave), and more.

Oakland has its own Chinatown, but none of the other cities in the Bay Area followed suit in spite a large increase of Chinese population in the 1900's.

In the 1960's and 1970's, the local merchants decided to remodel Chinatown to make it more tourist-friendly. Which is why today you see the street lamps decorated like lanterns held up by twin dragons, houses with swooping roofs and extra pagodas that are purely ornamental, and so on.

Today, the first and oldest Chinatown continues to wow tourists from everywhere, and will do so for the foreseeable future.

Is Communism Fundamentally Flawed? (Repost)

2011-04-02T11:02:00.000-07:00

Cover of Karl Marx

Supposedly, communism is created by Karl Marx to address the evils of capitalism (pursuit of profit at the expense of the "proletariat"). But is it fundamentally flawed?

Think about it: the idea that all properties are "shared" and belongs to the community/state is fine if you don't consider the following: someone must administer the whole thing. And doesn't that make the administrators the elite in this supposedly class-less society?

In other words, communism may work well enough in a small village, but if you go for large scale, the bureaucracy you must create to administer the realm is fundamentally opposed to the principle of "class-less" society. In other words, a "communist nation" is an oxymoron. You cannot be a nation, and be communist at the same time.

Also keep in mind, Karl Marx, and his Marxism, is trying to address the "evils" of industrial revolution. Lenin's main "contribution" is his re-interpretation / adaptation of Marxism, which is meant for an urban environment with industry, to the agrarian nature of Russian peasants. In fact, Lenin himself saw Imperialism as the most evil version of capitalism, in his book published in 1916. When the real Russian revolution in 1917 started, and the Tsar was forced to abdicate, Lenin was sitting in Switzerland. With some help,he returned to Russia to stir up trouble for the provisional government. With some popular support, such as his proposal of the "Soviet" system, where farmers can form "soviets" to elect representatives to speak for them, but revocable at any time, he eventually got elected as the leader of New Russia. In other words, he had stolen the revolution.

So what does that make Lenin, if he doesn't see this fundamental paradox? He did, but he did not care. In 1918, in the interest of expediency, he started appoint ministers to administer each industry. While the workers can advise (i.e. have a voice), the ultimate decision is made by the minister. In other words, he just turned his little "soviet" which was supposed to be "worker's voice" back into a dictatorship.

The Bolshevik government then formed a secret police, i.e. the Cheka, to crush any and all opposition, grouped under "counter-revolutionaries". So now, they are just as corrupt as a dictatorship. Then they started to ban "independent soviets", any soviets that were NOT created by the Bolshevik government, and started control of the newspapers and the media.

In other words, Lenin went against his own words and ideals. He told the workers and farmers that soviets are great, form them and they'll be your voice. A few years later, all non-government sanctioned soviets are crushed and disbanded. Any one against Lenin or the government policies (many of which are counter to his own principles and promises) are branded as counter-revolutionaries and persecuted, exiled, jailed, etc.

So we can pretty much conclude that Leninism is a fraud. Lenin himself abandoned it as soon as he came into power. It's just a trick to get the peasants to support him so he can get the central power.

Then of course, Lenin's successor, Stalin, decided to export their excuse to gain power to China, and it was picked up by Mao Tse-Tung. Mao and his band of fighters, who fought both the Nationalists AND the Japanese during WW2, got a LOT of arms when the war ended, "left" by the Japanese invaders, and handed over by the Russians. Add to that a good propaghanda campaign, lack of responsiveness by the Nationalist government (who's still trying to run the country with war-time policies), and blaming widespread corruption and lack of improvements on the Nationalists, Mao got his army to fight harder than the Nationalists (whose army has been fighting the Japanese for YEARS before WW2 started, and is war weary), and eventually forced the Nationalists to retreat to Taiwan.

Mao then used his influence to form a virtual cult. The Little Red Book created a national fervor, swept him into power, and the Cultural Revolution destroyed countless artifacts and cultural history, all in the name of 'ridding themselves of capitalist past'. Millions are publicly humiliated, beaten, or killed for owning SOME property that managed to survive the war. After the fervor is over, they had to get rid of the Red Guard, so they invented this new movement that says "go back to the countryside and farm". Of course, by then there isn't much left.

None of this, of course, sounds very "communistic". That's because they aren't. They are tools to consolidate power, to turn one group of people against another. One can draw similarities with Hitler. As Hitler blamed Jews for everything bad happening to Germany, and made the Germans believe it, Mao blamed everything on any one with some property left, on former Nationalists, and on any one with enough knowledge to see through these tricks, such as teachers, historians, and so on, grouped together as "the five black types", that must be found, interrogated, defeated, and destroyed.

Thus, one can conclude that it is NOT the Soviet Union and the PROC's founders that had somehow gotten it wrong along the way. They did not really "misinterpret" Marxism. They simply used Marxism as an excuse to usurp power from an established revolution. Once the power is usurped, they chose to ignore everything they had stood for or promised, but instead borrowed the flag of the revolution and destroy any opposition to their rule in the name of the revolution. They know that Marxism is NOT meant to rule a nation, as fundamentally it is unsound and cannot be implemented. It is merely a facade to cover their own ambition to power.

Soviet Union has already dissolved and fractured into the various republics. China is managing to delay the inevitable by soaking up foreign capital to build things, everything from skyscrapers to cars and iPods and whatnot. The question is... at what cost?

At least one commentator have stated that the current "economic miracle" in China cannot last, because what is really happening is the government is basically BUYING good press from International communities with cheap labor. Special economic zones are setup to allow special tax incentives for foreign investments. Workers get workable wages (low by Western standards), Western companies get rich, whom in turn pays huge taxes on their profits to governments, whom in turn tell the the world that China is great to do business with. In other words, you could say that the current Chinese government, which was supposed to be champion of the proletariat, the worker's paradise, and all that, has sold out the workers for International good press, and a share of the profits (as wages ARE taxed!).

(and 2 comments)

ssfsx17 said...: Yes, communism is fundamentally flawed. This is because I believe that humans are not inherently good, and therefore, a system which requires them to be good all the time can never succeed.; October 22, 2009 10:24 AM
jackie901 said...: Communism could be boardering on facism as it can only work if every person has the same ideals, beliefs, ect. and any person against those must be removed from sight to prevent damage to communism, however what is widely accepted is that regardless of us looking and believing the same things we are all unique and a system reliant on a collective ideals cannot work.; March 26, 2011 5:14 PM

Scambusting Through Internet: Reverse Image Search

2011-03-09T01:59:00.000-08:00

Image via WikipediaWhen a photo arrives with a description, how do you know if it's really the item / event being illustrated?

You use Reverse Image Search, such as TinEye.com

Let's say someone forwarded you a picture of the most beautiful prison you've ever seen. It's a new SuperMAX prison for the ultra-rich, the e-mail claimed. Is it true?

The correct answer is "it's a prison, but it's NOT in the US". It's actually an Austrian detention center.

TinEye would have given you the link, and a click would have taken you to a blog entry which identified the REAL place.

However, this can also used to identify picture pirates, who stole / copied pictures without attribute. Scam websites often fill their website with stolen stock photos in order to look somewhat professional.

Do NOT steal pictures blindly on the Internet. People WILL find out.

Fake Profiles in Online Services

2011-03-08T16:40:00.000-08:00

Fake Profiles are all over the Internet. It is almost expected if that half the profiles online are fakes. Facebook? Fake. Match.com? Almost certainly fake.

But LinkedIn profiles? Where professionals go to get networked? Plenty of fakes there too.

Linkvarrk.com have found and busted quite a few fakes, where fakers borrowed photos from other websites to create fake employees for (their own?) firms and such or just put up fake pictures.

And it's amazing how easy it is to find fakes now... If you just use TinEye the image search engine.

Here's one example: Susan Burgos on LinkedIn

http://linkvaark.com/2010/12/05/meet-susan-burgos-angel-johns-mentor/#comments

(borrowing this screenshot from Linkvaark)

Except that's a picture of a makeup artist called Petra Strand

http://www.beautyinthebag.com/wordpress/beauty-gurus/brand-pioneers/petra-strand-pixi/

Can you say... BUSTED?!

Proof that China is an Oligarchy, not a Communist Nation

2011-03-06T22:07:00.000-08:00

Someone did a tally of the National People's Congress, which has 2987 members.

Taking the richest 70 people out of that group... Guess how much money they have together? 75.1 BILLION

Guess how much money the richest 70 people out of US Congress (535 members, including both houses) have? LESS THAN 5 billion together.

Yet the US have TEN TIMES the per-capita income of China.

Communist my ***.

Stupid SEO Hacks: Mixing Languages

2011-03-06T13:05:00.000-08:00

Some websites try to hack Google by mixing languages. They put in content labelled as one language / encoding, but mix in content of another language.

Here is one example:

http://rostislaw.com/maahad-tahfiz-sains&page=6

The interesting part is this page not visible. If you go to that URL in a browser, you get forwarded to the main website, rostislaw.com

But Google treats it as a separate page.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ms&u=http://rostislaw.com/maahad-tahfiz-sains%26page%3D6&ei=SPRzTYm_GJDWtQPpgojcCw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CGkQ7gEwBziCAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtvi%2Bexpress%26start%3D130%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1C1GPCK_enUS321US322%26tbs%3Dqdr:d%26prmd%3Divnsl

So by submitting all these "fake pages" to Google, which all link back to your website, you got backlinks. And they APPEAR to be unique content. Google use the first word to guess the language and in this case it's Malay. So it thinks the page is Malay when it is actually in Russian.

F***.

Who Goes to Sushi Restaurant to NOT Eat Rice?

2011-02-19T14:53:00.000-08:00

Image via WikipediaA self-proclaimed diabetic that's lawsuit-happy, that's who.

A man paid for "all-you-can-eat sushi buffet" at a restaurant in the Greater LA. He grabbed a plate of sushi, but instead of eating them, he picked off just the fish, at those, and tossed the rice. When he head back for seconds, he was refused. When asked why did he tossed the rice, he claimed he was diabetic. The chef offered to let him have 2 orders of sashimi (which comes out to be LESS than the buffet), the guy refused, paid, and left

Two weeks later he came back with a lawsuit. He wants $4000 for humiliation.

His lawyer claims that the restaurant is not "diabetic friendly".

The owner says the guy is abusing the "all you can eat" policy, because the restaurant is offering "all you can eat SUSHI", not all you can eat sashimi.

I am with the owner, and I am diabetic.

Who the **** goes to SUSHI restaurant for DIABETIC FRIENDLY cuisine anyway?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20110218,0,1228883.column

Shark Fin Ban is Much Ado About Nothing (and may even be racist)

2011-02-14T22:13:00.000-08:00

Image via WikipediaJust today, there's news that a couple state reps want to ban "shark fins" in California. Assemblyman Paul Fong claim that 70 million sharks are slaughtered per year, mostly for their fins.

Well, marine biologist says that figure is bull****. That's the highest end figure available. A truer figure is about 38 million. It could be as low as 26 million. This was again, cited by National Geographic, who's not going to publish the "100 million" or even "70 million" figure.

Furthermore, Japan and China are the primary importers of shark fins. According to an importer, 95% of stock is going to China and Japan. China, with its growing economy (just passed Japan for #2 economy in the world) is the biggest importer of shark fins.

Thus, banning shark fin imports or sale in California will NOT significantly affect shark finning at all.

In fact, most of the sharks harvested are done in poor third-world countries like Ecuador, Indonesia, and so on. Though Japan has its own port full of shark finning. Except in this case, the carcasses are NOT tossed back into the ocean for the ultimate recycling. And according to Japanese government stats, their shark catch have HALVED since the 1960's (to about 35000 tons per year, and that's the whole sharks, not just the fins).

In fact, a 2010 film, called "The Shark Con", asks whether the "plight of sharks" and "shark finning" have been drummed up by so-called ecologists as a bit of fear-mongering.

Furthermore, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, and Singapore are also consumers of shark fin. Yet it seems only Chinese are targeted.

Frankly, this is a purely symbolic gesture. It won't do anything significant to reduce the consumption of shark fins.

Here's my version of the Crap Detector...

2011-02-05T13:02:00.000-08:00

Cover of Ernest HemingwayThe term crap detector was probably coined by Ernest Hemmingway, in an interview with The Atlantic magazine. The complete quote was:

"To invent out of knowledge means to produce inventions that are true. Every man should have a built-in automatic crap detector operating inside him. It also should have a manual drill and a crank handle in case the machine breaks down."
-- http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/65aug/6508manning.htm

Howard Rheingold defined crap as "information tainted by ignorance, inept communication, or deliberate deception".

Pure spam content on the Internet have been pretty well filtered by Google and such. However, the spammers have gone to a different strategy: search engine optimization (i.e. how to spam the search results), and content farms, where low-quality articles are churned out by the dozens through automatic rewriters to get higher on search results.

It had gotten so bad that Google has essentially declared war on those content farms full of crap. However, that puts their objectivity at doubt. And they appear to be losing the battle, at least for now. Over 1/3 of Lifehacker readers voted that spammers have made significant foothold into Google's search results.

Howard Rheingold
Image via WikipediaSo what can you do? If Google can't filter out crap for you, you must do it yourself. There are two ways... Through word of mouth, such as WOT (Web of Trust), SideWiki, and other comment systems, and through your own crap detector.

I've found multiple crap detectors online, including CRAP Test, Howard Rheingold's Crap Detection 101, Scott Berkun's Bull**** Test, and the FactChecked.ORG checklist. None of them seem to be very comprehensive, or specifically designed to check for crap online.

Here's my version specifically for Internet Research, inspired by those tests. I'll just call it "Kasey's Crap Test" (inspired by all the other Crap Tests above)

Bias: Do you have a pre-existing bias regarding the hypothesis?
Purpose: What is the purpose of the hypothesis? What is the ultimate goal?
Evidence: What supports the hypothesis?

Facts as evidence

Fact or hypothesis?
Are the facts current?
Are the facts reliable?

Testimony as evidence

Is the testimony author qualified?
Is the testimony author reliable?
Is the testimony current?

Logic as evidence

Counter-Argument: What about the other side? Was it studied at all?

BIAS

Do you have a personal bias toward the topic / hypothesis? Do you know why?

Just by reading the information (or hypothesis), without reading any of the evidence, are you inclined to believe (or disbelieve) the hypothesis? If you do, this indicates you have some sort of a bias toward a particular side. Do you know why? Now that you are aware of the bias, can you keep an open mind?

Skepticism is not bias. Skepticism is "Really? Show me some proof either way." Bias is is tendency toward either Yes! or No!

PURPOSE

The author must have a purpose of writing an article or even a blog entry. Is the purpose simply to inform, to recruit you, to sell you something, or to sway your opinion? Is it the same as the hypothesis, or is there an ulterior motive?

Sales articles generally have separate hypothesis and purpose. The hypothesis is "Item X is good for you", and purpose is "Buy Item X".

Search the Beginning and the End

Sometimes, the answer is in the title, but sometimes, the purpose is hidden at the end. I would check the title, and the last paragraph, to see if the message is consistent, or is there an alternate purpose to the article. For example, some scam promoters write an article proclaiming their scam is NOT really a scam (i.e. "inform"), but the real purpose of the article is to actually recruit you into the scam.

Or even worse, the article's title can be "Truth about ______ Scam", but in the end is a recruiting link into that very scam.

Is there a way to give some feedback?

Authors who are interested in genuine exchange of information would welcome feedback. The fake ones and the closed-mind ones would have closed off comments on their blog and not even leave a "feedback" email address. Very few "sales articles" accept feedback at all.

Whether they accept feedback / comment gives you an idea whether they have looked for evidence and then reached an conclusion, or did they have a conclusion to start, then looked for evidence to support it, and is not interested in any feedback. The former is science. The latter is pseudo-science.

EVIDENCE

As Scott Berkun puts it very succintly, "How do you know what you know?" There are generally three types of supporting evidence: fact, testimony, or logic.

Facts as Evidence

Are the alleged facts actually facts or just more hypotheses? Do they actually support the hypothesis? Are the facts current? Are the facts reliable?

Facts or Conclusions?

Are the "factual evidence" actually facts, or conclusions? What someone quotes as "fact" may be an a hypothesis or an observation, and it's worthless if you don't know the evidence that supports the hypothesis or lead to the conclusion. For example, if you see this headline

Android passes Apple in U.S. smartphone market share

Then you see the one below.. Which is correct?

Apple iPhone Market Share 3 times Great than Android in US

Actually, they both are correct. Both are referring to different information. The first headline was referring to ComScore stat that Android has surpassed Apple in US Smartphone market at the end of 2010. The second link was citing much older data, released by Nielsen in June 2010.

If you only look at the headlines you would never have known that. Both are observations, not facts. The actual data are the facts. The observation has a bias. The same facts may spawn multiple conclusions depending on the bias.

For example, both headlines appeared in January 2011, based on the same set of data: ComScore smartphone market share based on 3-month period ending November 2010. Both are observations, but one is very obviously biased.

Android Beats Apple in Market Share — LA Times
Blackberry still dominates Enterprise Market — BerryTimes

Are the facts "current" or "timely"?

If it's research, is the research current? Did the research occurred many years ago, and new / better results became available? If there are differences between the results, have the differences been adequately explained? Have the research been repeated by a third-party?

A lot of "crap" on the Internet are undated stuff archived in "content farms" that were outdated almost as soon as they are published, but they still clog up the search results. You have to look for the date and other time indicators to determine the "freshness" of the data. The data may have changed significantly in the meanwhile.

In the two headlines above, as you can see, a lot of data changed in 6 months.

Are the facts "reliable"?

Who did the research? Does the researcher(s) have anything to gain or lose from how the results turn out? Is the raw data available instead of the conclusions? (Remember, conclusion is an opinion/hypothesis, not fact)

Andrew Wakefield, the infamous "autism doctor" who suggested that MPR vaccine may have contributed to autism, was revealed to have received a lot of money from a lawyer group who wants to sue makers of MPR vaccines and was looking for "evidence".

It is best if the facts came from several different independently reliable sources. It is far less likely for data to be "faked" if they came from multiple reliable sources, or even multiple unknown but unrelated sources.

A newspaper is generally reliable, as they have a reputation to maintain. A world-renowned paper (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.) even better.

Testimony as Evidence

Who is making the testimony? Does that person have the proper credentials to make such a conclusion? Do the testimony actually support the hypothesis? Has the person changed his mind since then? All testimony is tinged with bias.

Is the Testimony Author Qualified?

If a lawyer claims that a certain medical supplement is 100% effective in helping weight loss, would you believe him? Probably not. He's not a medical professional and thus is not qualified in giving medical advice.

If a regular Joe off the street claims a certain "income opportunity" is 100% legal, and it had made him money so it cannot be a scam, would you believe him? Probably not. He's not a lawyer. What if it was your friend or relative telling you about this "income opportunity" instead?

If a lawyer claims something is 100% legal, that's a bit more believable... depends on which jurisdiction he's talking about. If a local divorce lawyer talks about international law, that would be way out of his depth. If a lawyer in Indonesia claims the company is 100% legal in the US, that would be a problem.

Don't confuse this with 'ad hominem' attack. This only applies to TESTIMONIAL evidence, or in other words, an opinion. In other words, "(Based on my expertise) (I believe) this is good/bad." It sounds like a fact, but it is an opinion, based on his/her expertise / experience.

Is the Testimonial Author Reliable?

Does the testimony author have something to gain by making the testimony? In other words, is s/he biased?

Andrew Wakefield, the infamous "autism doc" had destroyed his credibility when it was revealed that a group of lawyers paid him a lot of money looking for evidence to sue makers of MPR vaccines.

Is his or her testimony corroborated by other unrelated people? Or contradicted? Why?

Has the Testimonial author changed his mind since then?

If a person allegedly made a testimonial, check that person to make sure s/he had not changed his/her mind since.
Testimonials can be falsely attributed. Nobel Laureates have sued Mannatech for allowing associates to use their names to promote Mannatech products, implying some sort of endorsement.

Logic as Evidence

Logic can be used to support a hypothesis. Most people are familiar with logical deduction, or deductive reasoning. It can be written as follows:

A) something; and
B) related something else
therefore
C) conclusion

For example:

A) All men are mortal. B) Socrates is a man. Therefore C) Socrates is mortal.

Both A) and related fact B) must be true to make C) actually true.

However, what appears to be logic may in fact be logical fallacies. Here's one example:

A) Whenever it rains, you get wet. B) You are now wet.Therefore C) it is raining.

Here, A) is not a properly written fact. While it is true, there are more than one reason for one to get wet instead of just rain. This is called "logical abduction". Basically, this is deductive reasoning applied BACKWARDS (and is therefore wrong.)

Someone said "I took X, and I lost weight. Therefore X helps weight loss". Is that a logical statement? No, it is not. There is no proof that X is a significant factor in the weight loss unless there are some sort of scientific test(s) that ruled out all other factors. A single test can have flaws or bias. The tests should be repeated by disinterested third-parties that are not biased toward any one.

This is known as a "hasty generalization", trying to infer a generalization ("X helps weight loss") from a single case "I took X, and I lost weight" that may not be typical. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/hasty-generalisation/

There are three general types of logical fallacies:

fallacy of relevance
fallacy of equivocation
fallacy of presumption

Fallacy of Relevance -- trying to argue that something was related when it is not related

One type of "fallacy of relevance" is "bandwagon fallacy". An example would be:

"Ten million owners can't be wrong! Buy Product Y today!" (Implies Product Y is good)

Whether Product Y is popular is not related to whether it is "good" or not.

Fallacy of Ambiguity -- trying to confuse the issue with word play or ambiguous interpretation

One type of Fallacy of Ambiguity is the "strawman fallacy", with the following example from Wikipedia

Person A: Our society should spend more money helping the poor.

Person B: Studies show that handouts don't work; they just create more poverty and humiliate the recipients. That money could be better spent.

B had intentionally misinterprets the position of A ("spend more money" is not "more handouts" though they are superficially similar), defeats the misinterpreted version, and concludes A's position is defeated.

Fallacy of Presumption -- trying to presume something and use that as part of the argument, but that presumption itself is not proven

One type of fallacy of presumption is "Arguing from ignorance", also known as "appeal to ignorance" or "proving a negative". Here is an example:

"If you can't prove that God does not exist, then God must exist."

This is conclusion presumes that there are only two choice: God must either exist, or not exist, when in fact, God can be unknowable, or simply unknown. So there are at least two other choices. This tactic is often used by debaters to shift the burden of proof onto the opponent.

For more about logical fallacies, see http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

COUNTER-ARGUMENT

Did the author study the opposite side of the hypothesis s/he is trying to prove or disprove? Did he acknowledge any objections, observations, facts, or such that support the other side? There is always more than one side of the story.

A sales article or one-sided heavily-biased article would only mention evidence that support one side of the conclusion. A more balanced article would mention some opposing evidence, but explain them away. How they are explained away is important, as it reveals how the author thinks, and whether he has blind spots or bias toward a particular conclusion.

Often a promoter of a scam will invent all sorts of explanations on why the scam is NOT a scam, usually by employing logical fallacies to dismiss legitimate concerns raised by critics.

CRAP DETECTION EXAMPLE ONE

Just for grins, I typed in "Idol White", and picked the first result to analyze it for "crap".

http://www.squidoo.com/idol-white-free-trial

Instead of going through line by line, I'll just list the factors I found.

Bias: if it's FREE and I want Whiter Teeth...

Purpose: Please try Idol White through my link! Definitely an ad.

Facts: None. Just personal testimonials, with not even a personal before/after pictures. The author appears to be biased.

Testimony: None. Author revealed NOTHING about him/herself except used Idol White. Not a dental hygienist or dentist or otherwise any sort of expert on teeth whitening or dental help. Reliability is zero. In fact, a study of the official Idol White website reveals that the links forwards to Idol White with an affiliate code.

Logic: None, but several logical fallacies, such as "great smile helps you attract opposite sex, so you should get Idol White".

Counter-argument: Nothing.

Thus, this article is pure "crap".

CONCLUSION

Crap Detection is not simple, but it is mainly tedious. Google and other search engines makes information access simple, but it is up to you to employ them to help your crap detector.

Helium -- where junk content is valued and real content is rejected for "lack of quality"

2011-01-30T23:11:00.000-08:00

Image via CrunchBaseFollowing is my personal experience on Helium ( http://www.helium.com/ ) Your experience can and will vary.

A long while back (several years ago) I joined a variety of places where you supposedly write things to make money (sort of freelancing). At the time, I thought Helium was interesting as it has a mutual rating community. Multiple people write articles about a single topic, then you are randomly asked to rate the articles (which is better of the two given).

So I wrote a few.

Then I realized the raters are all bigots.

They don't actually rate the articles based on quality. They just rate that they "like".

I wrote an article on "abandoneware". Legally, there is no such thing. Morally there is no such thing either. There is no such thing as "squatter's rights" to intellectual property. The #1 article claims "unsupported software" is considered "abandoneware". Others actually claimed a moral right to abandoneware as long as no harm can be proven. As predicted, my article ended at the bottom of the heap, even though I believe it is the most technically accurate of the 6 articles on that topic. That was in 2007.

So I abandoned the place.

In 2010, I was busted a scam called TVI Express, and I found a lot of writers were singing praises about TVI Express on Helium. So I gathered up all the facts I got, put in proper citations to actual news articles, and explained it's a scam, by citing all the inconsistencies, all the lies the distributors told, compared the structures to all the laws, and so on, and declared it a scam. (I'll reproduce the article below)

The article was rejected for "LOW QUALITY" that does not meet Helium's standards.

WTF?!

At least the #1 article is a "scam busting" one from Shawn Cornett of ExpertMLMReview. #2 and others are singing praises of TVI Express, and that's just bull****.

So there you go: I think Helium is a community of bigots, based on my experience. Its raters are not rating for quality. Of course, I may be bigoted as well. That's why this is a RANT.

--article reproduced below--

TVI Express is a scam, pure and simple. It deceived people on so many levels, and has continued to do so, it is being charged as fraud on 4 out of 7 continents, in only 2 years of existence. It is a pyramid scheme dressed up in MLM buzzwords and broken promises.

TVI Express IS NOT a Network Marketing Company

TVI Express used to describe itself as a combination of Internet, Travel, and Network Marketing. However, it can never properly describe what exactly is its product. In fact, if you go to TVIExpress.com website, you will find that it has no "product" page at all.

How can you be a network marketing company if you don't even have a product? Why are its members called "distributors" then? What are they distributing? Read their own FAQ for yourself:

3. Do I need to sell any products?
No. You don’t need to sell any products. TVI Express is a unique e-commerce opportunity allowing you to build the Business around the globe sitting at your home.
- http://www.tviexpress.com/faq.php

In fact, an Indonesia TVI Express "leader" Ms. Goernawan, told reporters that TVI Express is NOT multi-level at all.

Yet TVI Express describes itself as a network marketing company. Just look at the following quotes:
"Network Marketing — also Direct Selling or Multi Level Marketing is the most powerful system of free enterprise in our modern world, and it is the business model that TVI Express chose from the beginning."
- http://www.tviexpress.com/financial.php

"Today, TVI stands as the poster child for modern MLM done right"
- http://www.tviexpress.com/financial.php

"TVl's first month of sales was bigger than any other network marketing company known, and we're still exceeding sales projections."
- http://www.tviexpress.com/pop-up/why-tvi.php

"Network Marketing can be an amazing business opportunity, but it takes a lot of hard work, and we [TVI Express] are dedicated, above all else, to support each and every one of our distributors, from those just starting out, to the most experienced business leaders."
- http://www.tviexpress.com/aboutus.php

One wonders, if the company says it's network marketing, but but sells nothing according to itself, what does it sell?

TVI Express' product is itself

Actually, TVI Express FAQ answers the question... what does it sell? The answer is simple: it sells itself.

5. What do I need to do to cycle out of the boards?
The first thing you need to do is sponsor two (2) people who join the TVI Express Opportunity. This will qualify you to cycle out of the boards as you progress ahead in the Compensation plan. Secondly, you need to encourage and teach those two downlines (people you sponsored) to sponsor more people and duplicate the process. Following these two simple steps will have you making money even while you sleep
- http://www.tviexpress.com/faq.php

In other words, recruit 2 people, sell nothing, teach them to recruit two people each, and you will make money.

That describes a PYRAMID SCHEME, which is ILLEGAL!

Pyramid Scheme
Pyramid schemes, also referred to as franchise fraud, or chain referral schemes, are marketing and investment frauds in which an individual is offered a distributorship or franchise to market a particular product. The real profit is earned, not by the sale of the product, but by the sale of new distributorships. Emphasis on selling franchises rather than the product eventually leads to a point where the supply of potential investors is exhausted and the pyramid collapses. At the heart of each pyramid scheme there is typically a representation that new participants can recoup their original investments by inducing two or more prospects to make the same investment. Promoters fail to tell prospective participants that this is mathematically impossible for everyone to do, since some participants drop out, while others recoup their original investments and then drop out.
- http://www.fbi.gov/majcases/fraud/fraudschemes.htm

This is where the TVI Express members will hem and haw. They will claim that the 7-day 6-night vacation you get is the product (however, that is a gift from TVI Express to the new member as an enrollment bonus, not a product for sale to OUTSIDE CUSTOMERS). They will claim that the membership itself, which supposedly gives discounts to travel, is the product (however, recruiter recruiting more recruiters is still a pyramid scheme). The two products will be studied later, but neither addresses the real concern: it is a pyramid scheme.

And it offers a BIG bait... chance to earn $10000 (+$5000 in company event travel voucher, but none are coming to your area, yet another lie!) but the payout is into your eWallet, not cash. It will cost you additional fees to convert that into real money you can spend. In fact, this eWallet business led to them being declared illegal in Namibia... operating as a bank without license.

TVI Express "benefits" are worthless

TVI Express members (note: NOT the company itself) claims that it has two products (or one, or the other), the 7-day 6-night trip, or the 'access to travel" via their back office. However, both are worthless as neither is what they appear to be.

The 7-day 6-night trip to 3-5 star hotel or resort and companion airfare arrives in the form of an e-certificate, of which the border was stolen off another website that provides similar services. You need to enter the e-certificate code into TVI Express "redemption website" (which is NOT the same as the "back office") and request redemption. There was NO public list of participating hotels except for two announcements by TVI Express in 2010, which listed about 150 hotels IN INDIA (and a few in Indonesia) and nowhere else.
What's even more surprising is TVI Express, starting in June, offers to cut your trip in half (i.e. 4-day 3-night), or else you need to pay extra $150 USD as "taxes and processing fees". In fact, you STILL need to pay taxes even if you take the shorter vacation, according to some members, just a bit less. And yes, this is via their own announcements.

Even if you are determined to take this trip despite the added fees and exotic locations, you still may not be able to. The redemption "portal" are randomly deactivated with no announcement whatsoever. You either need to buy extra vouchers (for the fees) to redeem the trip or in case of people in Indonesia, deposit money into your upline's personal bank account (!) to redeem the trips. TVI Express keep promising upgrades to the redemption portal every few months. It started operation in January 2009, but did not put out a proper redemption portal until June of 2010! And even then it was reputed to stop working randomly or not accept voucher amounts.

The trips are essentially, worthless, unless you live in or near India.

What of the "back office" where one can supposedly book trips all over the world? Closer examination of the page source revealed the back office to be relabeled version of Travelocity, through its affiliate program World Class Travel. WCTravel.com offers a "custom-label portal" with full power of travelocity to affiliates, and that's what TVIExpress got. The actual reservations goes to res99.com, which is owned by Travelocity. Or in other words, you could have gotten the same booking engine for FREE simply by going to Travelocity.com

There is even a video comparison on MetaCafe comparing TVI Express and Travelocity, searching for the trip between same two cities. The icons and prices are identical.

Thus, the alleged products are worthless. The trips are impossible to redeem to places you don't go, and the back office can be accessed for free elsewhere.

So what is the $250 for? To "qualify you for payment" in a pyramid scheme, of course.

TVI Express has No Real Corporate Office or Officers

TVI Express claims to be headquartered in London, UK. Yet their own address page gives an address over 15 miles from downtown London (in Uxbridge, NOT Heathrow as they claimed). Checking through Google Maps shows that no less than 18 businesses share that exact same address, no suite number, no room number, but the EXACT same address. The building is owned by Regus, a well-known officer and virtual office provider. Furthermore, TVI Express announcement says that they only accept walk-in visits "by appointment". This suggest that the corporate address in UK is a virtual office and any meeting room is rented by the hour.

TVI Express also lists an address in Cyprus. However, Cyprus is well-known to be a haven for "off-shore companies" and money laundering for the Russian Mafia and Al-Qaeda. Further research via Google shows no less than 5 companies listing the same address as TVI Express, leading one to suspect it is yet another virtual office.

TVI Express did not list ANY corporate officers or leadership team. The only person who 'represented' TVI Express with any consistency is Tarun Trikha, member of advisory board. He had appeared in various TVI Express "conventions" either personally or via video conference. However, according to TVI Express website, the advisory board is composed of top distributors. Yet in those conventions where Tarun Trikha gave interviews and in other conference calls, Tarun Trikha came across as the ONLY person in the know, with back channels straight to the top of TVI Express. In fact, he was outright called "Owner and CEO" by many TVI Express members. Ponder the ethical problems... Can the CEO of a MLM enroll himself as the first member? Is that even LEGAL?

It gotten so bad, Tarun Trikha's name quietly disappeared from the TVI Express advisory board sometime during October 2010.

TVI Express Is In Legal Trouble All Over the World

China is the first to openly attack TVI Express. Members there claimed all sorts of fantastic legal excuses, such as "e-commerce is legal", but China started investigating TVI Express members in June of 2009 when reporters started to report the story. Arrests started in August 2009 and publicly reported events shows at least 7 arrested, and 3 convicted and sentenced.

Police in Sikkim, India investigated TVI Express locally after complaints, which lead to TVI Express issuing 6000 refunds in March 2010, while admitting no wrongdoing.

In May 2010 Australia slapped 3 local TVI Express promotors (calling themselves TVI Team Oz) with an injunction from operating and also froze their bank account. One of the members deliberately ignored the injunction and withdraw all her money by going to different branches and withdraw smaller amounts, leading to additional contempt of court charges.

State of Georgia in the US issued a cease and desist order for "TVI North America", a few "leaders" in that state, to stop operating ASAP as it is operating fradulently. One of the leaders, Patrick Dejour, contacted TVI Express immediately, seeking assistance to appeal but received no reply, and the cease and desist order became permanent after 21 days. Mr. Dejour admitted his mistake into leading members into a scam and published all 7 pages of the order on his Facebook account and asks all TVI Express members in the US to cease operation immediately (or face prosecution like he did).

In Early November 2010, Bank of Namibia issued a formal warning against TVI Express and one other company, calling them frauds, performing banking activities illegally in Namibia.

There were also reports of TVI Express fraud in Takjistan, Georgia (the country), Indonesia, Vietnam, Spain, South Africa, Brunei, and other countries, and reports of local investigations into this international pyramid scheme.

TVI Express is a Scam

TVI Express triggered many red flags when it comes to MLM litmus test: no product, no company transparency, legal trouble all over the world, and so on. One wonders how can one argue it is a legitimate opportunity at all. There are many other signs of fraud and suspicious behavior, this article cannot cover them all.

TVI Express members and supports will either lie, or not mention all these facts that you can easily verify by doing some research yourself. And then they will trot out the standard excuses like "you don't understand us". Learn how to separate opinion from fact, and base your decision on the facts listed above.

TVI Express is not worth your time or effort, and may in fact land you in legal trouble. Stay away.

--end article--

More embarrassment on Chinese News TV

2011-01-29T02:00:00.000-08:00

Image via CrunchBaseChinese News CCTV 13 allegedly played a footage of the Chinese J-10 fighter conducting an exercise on 23-JAN-2011 and destroyed a drone. However, sharp-eyed bloggers caught the footage of the explosion as being lifted out of the American movie Top Gun, even though it only last all but 2 seconds.

The news quickly went viral, and was even picked up in the US by sites such as Gizmodo, which is then picked up by other newspapers around the world.

Turns out the news is even more interesting. I searched on ToDou, the Chinese Youtube clone, and found a "promo tape" from the fighter maker CAIC#1, which shows the same sequence: missile firing, then the 2 seconds of things blowing up, at 3:07 mark.

So we have two levels of fakery here.

1) CCTV13 was showing STOCK footage, not real missile test footage with no attribution

2) The "stock footage" from the plane manufacturer contained a few seconds pirated from Top Gun

Mannatech and their fanatical following

2011-01-29T00:06:00.000-08:00

Image via WikipediaI have no idea whether their products do any good (and in my own opinion, they do not) but that's not relevant. I've been getting into a bit of discussion with a Mr. David Maddern, who, thus far, has demonstrated a willingness to defend Mannatech, even when all evidence is against him. Instead, he finds some other excuses to continue the defenses.

By my count, Mr. Maddern had won ZERO rounds in our two months of verbal sparring. He had barely edged a tie in 2 rounds, but lost 12 rounds. So that's a complete disaster.

The discussion can be found at http://behindmlm.com/companies/mannatech/sugarmums-com-au-whos-behind-the-business/

Here's a tally of each conversation, and sort of a "tally". I am KC, and he's DM

DM: Makes wild claims of 46% commission payout and such

KC: Calls for proof

DM: Throws out Mannatech website as "proof", names MTEX stock symbol

KC: Finds stock symbol completely unimpressive, massive losses

DM: Starts blabbing about "Mannatech is NOT sugar pill", cites some unproven explanation about cell science

DM: Claims Mannatech is losing money because it's donating vitamins for third world nutritional relief

KC: Calls DM's explanation "pseudo-science", explains "dip" in stock price occured LONG before nutritional relief announcement

DM: Replies with "you don't understand us / our science", blabs more about glyconutrients

Stock and general info round goes to KC, DM abandons the field

DM: Blabbers on about how glyconutrients improves immune system, and cites some statistics that claim society is getting sicker, "glyconutrients do not cure anything they allow the body to work properly"
and completely misses the reference to "snake oil", cites bogus stat that 1 in 10 children now autistic

DM: When called out, admits he got his figure on autism was wrong, but refused to back down from statement "society is getting sicker"

Fake claim round is a loss for DM.

DM: Blabs some more about increase incidence of cancer, claims glyconutrients helps body fight cancer

KC: Cites leading glycobiology experts (via Wikipedia) stating that Mannatech products cause mainly flatulence

DM: Dismisses glycobiology expert's complaint with insults, blames "big pharma" with agenda against Mannatech. "There has been a huge campaign by BigPharma to discredit Mannatech."

KC: Calls DM out on the "blame a conspiracy" excuse

DM: Continues to blame conspiracy "Threatened by redundancy a few of the pharma heavies got together and the result has been small operations copying glyconutrient packaging testing mannatech patents", claims Mannatech patents are valid, therefore Mannatech is valid.

KC: Points out that DM considers leading glycobiologists quacks

DM: Continues to blame opponents to Mannatech as "employed by enemies" "My concern with those ‘experts’ is that drug companies may well be employing them so they could be partisan"

DM loses this round as he has no proof of "conspiracy" charge, then abandons argument

DM: Claims if you join Mannatech, you get rich by BUYING stuff. "As explained earlier mannatechs system is all about product in that membership at the premium level buys discounted product and the 28day recurring payment which buys consumable product (min $A110) is required for all levels to get any benefit from those downline."

KC: Asks for explanation

DM: Backpedals, claims that you actually recruit people into autoship program

KC: Points out recruiting people into autoship program doesn't sound very legal

DM: Claims my description is "off", suggests I look up what's legal

KC: Did just that, cites Gerald Nehra, top MLM attorney in the US

DM: Claims the attorney is not an expert "That is an Attorney’s letter, not the specific inspection of a proposal which must have gone on, or an excert of a law off the statutes."

KC: Points out Nehra is the leading expert in the US on MLM legal aspects

DM: Claims the previously quoted definition was "out of context", but offers no other defense. Makes generic claim "Network Marketing is legal"

KC: Points out "implying Mannatech is legal because Network Marketing is legal" is a logical fallacy, cites all previous issues that DM retreated from

DM: Continues to claim we all need glyconutrients, ignores that he had cited logical fallacy

DM abandons the field again, resulting in another loss, that's 4th loss in a row

DM: Uses the "heresy defense", claims "truths" are all at first ridiculed, then accepted, implies Mannatech's research will be accepted.

KC: Calls DM out on using the "heresy" defense without any sort of proof, as it's merely OPINION

DM: Cites Dr. McDaniel's book as proof (former medical director of Mannatech), but claims it's science

TIE for this round (though it should be a loss for him for using a fake excuse) 4 loss and 1 tie

DM: Claims hackers prevented him from posting, claims glyconutrients are NOT in liquid form therefore previous critics are bull****ing

KC: Points out "Ambrotose" is available in powder form, which obviously dissolved in liquid then taken

DM: Claims Ambrotose can be sprinkled in food or taken in capsule form, not relevant

KC: Points out sprinkling is irrelevant, points out Ambrotose is mainly made of various plant gums

DM: Claims that scientists are not "scientifically accurate" in describing ambrotose as a "liquid"

DM: Claims that our minds are "closed", and we should accept Mannatech is something new

KC: Points out the only one claiming so is Mannatech

DM: Claims Mannatech have hired people doing research in the area so there are no 'third-party" people to verify the people, but provided no evidence.

KC: Points out that DM had not proven any sort of benefit, and in fact is PROHIBITED from doing so

DM: Continues to IMPLY benefits to the body, supposed one ingredient acted on a few cells

KC: Points out lab results does not actually mean benefits in human body

DM: Claims lab test have direct relation to human body

KC: Points out DM is not a glycobiologist and is no position to interpret the results

DM: Claims his background as "medical scientist" gives him enough background, plus he takes enough supplements that is doing him good.

TIE for this round (I may be too generous) 4 loss and 2 ties

KC: Cites TED video on nutritional industry as the "big placebo"

DM: Calls claim "sweeping generalization", claims "I see you use comedians to justify your position, where does this bloke spring from?"

KC: Points out TED video's Michael Specter is a noted investigative journalist

DM: Dismisess credentials as "reporters out to sensationalize a story", continues 'they don't understand us' excuse

KC: Points out DM used ad hominem attack TWICE

Loss for DM for this round, using dishonest debate tactics 5 losses and 2 ties

DM: Shifts gears to "you can't grasp the logic of glyconutrient is good for you" Which is polite way of saying "you don't understand us"

DM: Tries "proving a negative" excuse, "All you ppl who say they don’t work have no evidence that they don’t, its at best hung on an hypothesis."

KC: Calls DM out for using that lousy excuse as an argument

DM: Abandons position, cites some more personal anecdote as "evidence"

That's 6 losses and 2 ties

DM: Claims "leading economists says wellness revolution is on the way"

KC: Points out it's only ONE GUY, mr. Pilzer, that said that, and he meant that in a general sense

DM: Shifts gears, claim medical industry is killing people and bankrupting governments

That's SEVEN losses and two ties

KC: Catches DM at a shifting stance, points out a statement that appear to be from Kevin Trudeau's book

DM: Shifts gears again, claims hospitals are killing people, cites scary numbers

KC: Points out numbers are NOT put in context, death rate is 0.3% (or less)

KC: Points out DM is using an unsupported hypothesis

DM: Shifts gear back to pseudo-science about how glyconutrients are good for you

For abandoning the issue on medical industry, DM racks up ANOTHER loss. That's EIGHT losses and two ties

KC: Points out DM has recycled "you don't understand us" excuse

DM: Shifts gears, claims that nutritional supplements do NOT need full double-blind studies

DM: Claims Mannatech can conduct their own experiments that "prove" their own stuff works, sees no conflict of interest

KC: Points out data can be spun to fit a viewpoint, so third-party tests are the only valid validation

DM: Dismisses concern with no proof, claims if a doctor with lots of experience likes Mannatech, he will listen

KC: Points out that he will not listen to other glycobiology experts, sounds like a blindspot

DM: Claims to have no blindspot, but continues to blame conspiracy

KC: Points out blindspot toward a blindspot is still a blindspot

That's NINE losses and two ties.

DM: Claims he did not believe the glycobiologists wrote the critique of Mannatech

KC: Finds the actual paper "A Glyconutrient Sham" in Oxford Medical Journal

KC: Cites juicy tidbits from that paper

DM: Cites anecdotes of benefits as defense, claims Mannatech is doing valuable research

DM: Claims pubMed is incomplete, offers some anecdotes but no real proof, dismiss critic of Fisher Institute

KC: Digs up more dirt on Fisher Institute, called fake charity by Texas Attorney General

KC: Calls DM out on defending Fisher Institute... and Mannarelief

DM: Defends McDaniels, director of Fisher Institute

DM: Cites GlycoNutrientReference.com for information

KC: Points out GlycoNutrientreference.com has no external reference or even citations

Double loss for DM, having lost the defense of McDaniels and more. ELEVEN losses and two ties.

KC: Cites another medical professional, predicts DM will attack with "he knows nothing about glyconutrients"

DM: As predicted, attacks with "he doesn't know enough"

KC: Points out DM uses pseudo-science tactics to defend Mannatech

KC: Points out DM may have violated Mannatech policy, Nobel Laureates claim Mannatech used their names without permission,

KC: Digs up more dirt on McDaniels

DM: Retreats back to "pseudo-science" and technobabble, claims I stated all published papers are worthless

DM's lack of defense of McDaniels indicates he concedes ANOTHER round. That's TWELVE losses and two ties.

KC: Called DM's quote "out of context", I was referring to Mannatech's research as worthless (without outside confirmation)

DM: Continues to claim "leading glycobiologists" are wrong, but without proof

KC: Points out the only ones that say they're wrong would be Mannatech

TIE THUS FAR

And that is the current tally... That there is NOT A SINGLE WIN for DM's side. He had lost 12 of 14 issues, with two barely edging a tie (and I was being generous in grading)

When he loses, he falls back to his pseudo-science and abandons the field.

Is there a political message in the song chosen by Lang Lang for the Whitehouse dinner?

2011-01-24T13:05:00.000-08:00

Cover of Lang LangLang Lang is an acknowledged master of the piano in the current generation, and his invitation to Whitehouse to perform for Obama and Hu at the state dinner was no surprise.

What was surprising is the song chosen.

Image via WikipediaThe song is called "My Motherland" (literally: Wo-Di-Zhu-Guo, or "my ancestral nation"). While it is a Chinese patriotic song, it is also the main theme for "Battle on Shangganling Mountain," about a communist "People's Volunteer Army" defeating U.S. military "jackals" in a Korean War battle.

While there is no literal mention of the war, "jackals" (i.e. invaders) will be met with "guns". Remember, Chinese literature and songs are filled with symbolisms.

I can think of a dozen more songs that does not have this contextual problems.

Perhaps Lang Lang was completely unaware of the contextual problem, but it is unlikely everybody else is also completely unaware as well.

So who decided to keep quiet?

Cultural Baggage and Entrepreneurship... continued

2011-01-20T07:30:00.000-08:00

AdroitAlien and I have a little discussion on Cultural Baggage and Entrepreneurship... This is his reply where we were discussion on China, labor, and more. He wrote:

If you were talking about cheap labor in general, how exactly is that exploiting? More to the point, who are we to decide if their labor standards are unfit? And if they are unfit, who is to blame? Do you see my point here? Even if we replace the "child labor" with "cheap labor", my previous point would still be valid. Supply and demand works in favor of demand. If there is a surplus of demand, people will find a way to fill(Supply) it. If there is a surplus of supply, demand falls(Unless they are commodities). It is the US that is the main source of these products. We are the demand.

Well, the point was not about "cheap labor", but rather exploitation of cheap labor is not really entrepreneurship. Any one in business knows "buy low sell high". It doesn't take an entrepreneur to see that. Real entrepreneur creates new products, exploits new market niches, creates new service, and so on.

I don't believe the GDP and annual growth is fiction and I don't expect anyone with the ability to critically think to believe that. I've been following Nielsen for a while now and I am constantly reminded of Asia's growth.

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/chinas-next-frontier-its-rising-cities/

They do market research with measurable data to back it up. I have no affiliation with them.

China's GDP is widely believed be fiction. Just search "China real GDP" and you'll find plenty of economists doubting the numbers released by China. One economist is quoted as saying that the published figures on how much freight is moved doesn't correlate with the GDP figures. Local governments are know to inflate their figures to make themselves look good. China's GDP is a POLITICAL figure, not an economical one, so its reliability is low. The fact that China's Consumer Price Index has jumped to over 5% just in 2010 should tell you their GDP is actually due to INFLATION instead of actual growth.

As far as their banks controlling inflation, how is that different from the Federal Reserve's tactics of printing money[digitally]? Our system isn't even audited(yet). Congressman Ron Paul is pushing for an audit as we speak.

China's Central Bank has FORCEABLY ALIGNED thei Yuan (RenMinBi) to the dollar, refusing to budge even a few pennies. It is only late in 2010 that they allowed a TINY rise in exchange rate, and that was huge news. However, it did not prevent their CPI from taking a sharp rise, and real estate market going into a bubble. They are trying to manage the bubble, hoping it doesn't go KABOOM.

The approach is one of indirect control, vs. one of direct control. VERY different.

If Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, isn't that still Asian? A contractor often times outsource work. This is nothing new. They're still working for Apple. And when you say cheap labor, you're saying it like it's a bad thing. Very strange coming from a pro-business article. And this relates with my point on the prison industrial complex here in the US. Even if we conclude it to be a bad thing, we are doing the same. Why hire workers for $10 an hour when we can outsource the work to prisoners for 65 cents an hour?

The point actually is the "innovation" is NOT in China, but rather, in the US or elsewhere. Chinese companies are NOT known for their entrepreneurship and innovative spirit. China is known for being a copycat, producer of cheap clones, and for industries, a lot of industrial spies. It's not about whether the innovator is Asian or not.

Okay, I'll give you that. Sure, they have plants in the US and Mexico. Does that justify them kicking our butts in our own country? When nationalistic American say "Support America, buy American." Will, you raise your hand and make a point to support Toyota for having plants in America?

Then the point of "protect American jobs" goes away, doesn't it, if these "foreign" cars are actually built in the US? Boycotting them would be pointless. In fact, every new car sold in the US actually has a label that explains where the vehicle is assembled, and how much of the parts used were imported.

I'll humor you again. If the Japanese auto makers are getting "bailouts" for decades, who is to blame? The car makers for getting the bailouts or our governments for giving them? BTW, I don't consider loans "bailouts" no matter how low the interest rates are. A loan is a loan.

It wasn't blame. It was simply very different circumstances. Besides, the "bailout" in the US is a loan. US paid a lot of money to become part owners of GM, and the money WILL be paid back when the shares are sold later. Chrysler's version is a little different, but basically they sold a big chunk of themselves to Fiat.

So the difference between a business and a job is measured in time? If so how much?

The original quote is "if you have a business in which you spend most of your time, what you have is a job".

The point is that a business is supposed to generate PASSIVE income... that it makes money without your personal involvement. It's okay to be self-employed, but then, self-employed just means job, except you are your own boss. It's not really entrepreneurship.

I don't want to turn this into a east vs West or China vs the world thing. I know Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc are all part of the eastern culture. I just don't buy into the hate. Recently, China has limit the amount of precious materials, like Lithium, for export and they've been getting bad press for it. I say, how is that different from what we did to Cuba? This is not a debate on Eastern business culture = bad, Wester = good. I am taking no sides. I am here to say, "The pot calling the kettle."

It's NOT hate. it's simply DIFFERENCE. You have to unlearn part of the upbringing about conformity and all that (that's in the original Hub article). It wasn't really about east vs. west economic war, but more of an IDEA or CULTURE conflict.

Btw, just to clarify a few things. Morally, I do not support the child labor in China or anywhere but I do understand it. Also, innovation goes well with efficiency. Whether or not we agree with it, China and other parts of the world have made electronic good cheaper for us, the consumers. They are an industrialization country right now. We can't expect them to innovate as well as Japan or the US.

And if they ever want to become a "first-world country" they need to actually innovate instead of copy. Japan did that.

High Capacity Magazine Ban Should be Reinstated

2011-01-17T12:37:00.000-08:00

Image via WikipediaThe debate on high-capacity magazine for a handgun reignited after the Tucson shooting of 2011, when a Congresswoman was shot through the head and six others died, and over a dozen more injured. The shooter used a Glock 19 with a 33-round high-capacity magazine. He had at least one more but he didn't get a chance to use it.

Keep in mind that a normal Glock 19, a compact version of Glock 17, has a 15 round magazine (with 9x19mm parabellum rounds). So 33 round mag is more than twice the capacity.

Real shooters disdain hi-cap mags because:

1) they disturbs the balance of the gun.

In general, you want the gun to be FRONT heavy, to help you control the tendency for the gun to "nose up" after a shot due to the way barrel is located relative to the arm. A hi-cap mag adds more weight to the REAR of the gun.

2) they are far less reliable

US military tested in 2004 their version of hi-cap mag, called C-mags, for their M-4's / M-16's, and found them to be unreliable.

The reason is simple: the spring inside does NOT give constant pressure. By the time you got down to last few rounds the pressure exerted is far less, but if you load it all the way down it may just feed too hard and cause a jam. In fact, most shooters even underload normal factory mags by a round or two to make sure they can feed properly when used.

3) hi-cap mags serve no legitimate purpose other than to engage high number of targets with minimal training

A pistol is a short-range weapon (25-50 yards effective range, probably even less). If you have THAT many enemies that close, that requires 33 round mags, you are already ****ed, gun not withstanding.

Besides, real shooters, can drop mag, reload, and restart shooting in less than a second. They don't need hi-cap mags. If they don't have time to reload, they usually use a second gun, i.e. a "backup piece" instead. Or else they pack something better, like a submachine gun.

The only conceivable reason to have high-cap mags are, to me

1) Someone wants to prove he has a bigger gun than _____

2) Someone plans to shoot a LOT of targets with minimal training.

And that is what happened in Tucson: someone decided to shoot a lot of targets with minimal training.

Real trained shooters don't need or even WANT hi-cap mags. There are no legitimate use for them. Thus, they should be banned. And they WERE banned, until the "Assault Weapon Ban" expired in 2004.

Cultural Baggage and Entrepreneurship, leading to debate on economy and cultural strengths

2011-01-16T14:39:00.000-08:00

Recently I posted a hub about how your cultural upbringing can be "baggage" when it comes to entrepreneurship.

The conversation went from the topic and quickly devolved into comparing the eastern vs. western economies. :D

Read the hub and feel free to comment on the economy.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Ethnic-Culture-as-Obstacles-to-Entrepreneurship

Test post

2011-01-10T23:02:00.001-08:00

This is a test post from the Blogaway mobile client.

The picture is a candidate for cnet's LOLCAR feature... a Cavalier with too many stick-ons.

Should You Buy Verizon's iPhone 4 if it is released 11-JAN-11?

2011-01-10T13:51:00.000-08:00

Image via CrunchBaseGizmodo says no, and I would tend to agree.

Look, iPhone 4 is a very good phone, no doubt about that. It has a few problems here and there, but it's not something that will seriously affect adoption. It is a nice piece of tech, and it has that "want it now" factor that Apple products tend to possess in spades. So making it available to more people sure wouldn't hurt Apple.

However, it is not something that everybody MUST have. It is for geeks and wannabe geeks to look "cool". Android phones can do the same functions as good or better. Apps are catching up. And with over a dozen manufacturers making Android phones from the cheapest to now dual-core phones there is a full range to choose from.

Let's put it this way: iPhone 4 is a like a BMW: very nice sedans, but not for everybody. Android phones now comes in every form factor and features that basically ranges from the SmartKar to Rolls Royce and everything in between. You have old resistive screen 400x320 screen Android 1.6 phones all the way up to just announced dual-core 1 GHz CPU 1 GB RAM monster phones with LTE connectivity.

Even with phones similar to the iPhone 4 you have the Droid Incredible, Droid X, Samsung Galaxy S (various versions), plus other phones from HTC, LG, Samsung, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson, and soon, Huawei, Pantech, and other phonemakers. We can debate all day whether they are as good as iPhone or not, but they are definitely aimed at the same market segment. They are the Audis and Cadillacs as opposed to BMWs.

Furthermore, you know Apple will be coming out with iPhone 5 in June. So is there any particular reason to buy an iPhone 4 now, and be locked into a 2-year contract with Verizon? Do you really need an iPhone THIS bad?

If it has LTE, then sure, "iPhone 4G" instead of just iPhone 4, then it would be worth considering.

Pure CDMA regular 3G iphone 4? Not really.

World phone (i.e. CDMA/GSM hybrid phone)? Not really. That basically just means you *can* move it back to AT&T if you wish. Verizon won't like the idea at all, since you know hackers will jailbreak this and immediately unlock the GSM even if it's locked down at factory.

Here's MY prediction: tomorrow's phone will be iPhone 4C (for CDMA), a bit reminiscent of Apple IIc. It will NOT have LTE.

The new iPhone, i.e. iPhone 5 coming in June 2011, will be iPhone 5, and it will come in regular 5 and 5C versions, and THOSE will have more features... The GSM version will be HSPA+ compatible (i.e. will reach "4G speeds"), and the CDMA/EVDO version will be LTE compatible.

The reason for this is Apple will be later making a GSM version with LTE to be compatible with AT&T's upcoming LTE network. That'll be the Apple iPhone 5S. But that won't come until 2012, which is when AT&T says their LTE rollout will start.

Oh well, let's see what happens tomorrow.

Google's Chromium Netbook: why?

2010-12-15T23:16:00.000-08:00

Image by okubax via FlickrThe CR-48, a prototype based on Google's Chromium OS, was released to select people. It is interesting experiment, but it seems to be ultimately pointless.

First, it's a "netbook" size item, so it's small enough to carry around, but it's NOT small enough to fit in a pocket. So you pretty much have to open it to use it.

Second, it virtually REQUIRES internet connection, WiFi or 3G. Apparently it will come with 100MB of 3G connectivity (through Verizon) free for 2 years or something.

Third, all the apps, storage, and so on are online. It just run web apps. It has virtually no internal storage. Everything is stored in the cloud.

So why does this thing even exist? Android can do web apps, and do it better, though it will probably need it in tablet form, not smartphone form.

Is it for people who HATE computers? People who hate computers won't touch it in ANY form. It's like making candy for sugar-phobics. Eeek.

It is fast to boot up, mostly foolproof, and much much simpler than a PC or Mac. So it is aimed at an audience that have NOT stepped up to a PC or Mac, but want Internet connectivity somehow. The question is, how big is that audience?

Wikileaks: really making government more accountable?

2010-12-07T13:38:00.000-08:00

Image via WikipediaWikileaks supporters are claiming world-wide conspiracy to shut down Wikileaks for embarrassing governments worldwide. They claim we all should save Wikileaks because it is making governments more accountable.

But which governments needs to be held more accountable? Compared to hundreds of other governments and organizations, the US government is positively wide-open and transparent even BEFORE Wikileaks leaked out all this ****.

Everybody knows that when you attack a problem, you attack it where it does the most good, not where it do very little good.

For example, let's say there's a certain type of preventable accident that kills about 30 people a year, vs. 30000 people a year. Which type of accident should you try to really prevent, if it's about the same cost? The 30000 people kind, of course. Any one who go after the 30 people type will be ridiculed for being crazy and stupid.

Yet that's what Wikileaks is doing: making an already quite-open US government "accountable" when there are bazillion governments and agencies that NEEDS to be held accountable. Government in China, Iran, and so on needs some exposure. Who really makes the decisions there? What lead to those decisions? Who really ordered the Tiananmen Square massacre? What is the real GDP of China? Who really won the election in Iran? Who ordered the crackdown? What are the casualties during all those protests? Etc.

What Wikileaks really is: a media bully with delusion of gradeur.

Wikileaks: Does nothing useful except controversy

2010-11-28T21:12:00.000-08:00

So called WikiLeaks and Julian Assange's efforts to leak huge amounts of US documents only serves to make US look bad, and does nothing really to help the situation.

While I agree that US must have accountability for its actions, much of the leaked documents only serves to embarrass US and allies, and therefore, does not really improve the situation.

In fact, only Western countries would allow such leaks to continue. All the leaks do is destabilize the situation.

I'd be far more impressed if he managed to leak North Korea documents, or Iranian documents. As is, he's just a gossiper who managed to dig up some juicy stuff.

Another day, another "scam": Hexagonal Water Revitalizer

2010-11-25T11:02:00.000-08:00

A local TV station is showing "Water Revitalizer" which supposedly produces a purer "hexagonal water" which is supposedly better for you. (in case you are in the SF Bay Area, it's on the ICN channel, I think it's 26-4 or something like that)

First of all, there is no such thing as hexagonal water. It's something invented by quacks as "pseudo-science" to explain the hexagonal shape crystals the water forms when it freezes, and claims if you can generate hexagonal water it's better for you. Why? Nobody can actually explain.

Chemically it's exactly the same as normal water. It doesn't go through any sort of filter or purification in this special pitcher. All it does, as far as I can tell, is it uses induction to 'spin' the water (kinda like that Nu Wave oven demo). How that generates hexagonal water? No ****ing clue.

Yet you can find one for sale on Amazon for $500 USD ?!?!?! AND books that touts the supposedly benefits.

It's gotten so bad, even WIRED magazine have an article busting this scam.

I hate idiots, I really do: the people defending Four Loko drinks

2010-11-19T11:50:00.000-08:00

People "defending" Four Loko are claiming it's all politics when it comes to Four Loko, on how the government is a conspiracy to defend the big alcohol makers, and so on. Here's one such example, placed under "humor"

http://hubpages.com/hub/Alcohol-and-Caffeine-Deadly-Mix-If-In-Aluminum-Can

Four Loko is a malt liquor (12% alcohol), flavored with fruit so it tastes sort of like a juice drink, AND reinforced with caffeine (156 mg, about a cup of coffee), usually served cold and cheap.

This is a deadly combination, as the combo is designed to make you drink more.

1) Convenient package -- pop open a can and chug, no mixing required
2) Gives a heavy buzz... malt liquor is cheap and high alcohol content
3) Cold drinks in a can -- chug and chug some more, esp. with the fruity flavors
4) Stimulants keep you awake -- so you can chug some more

Before you know it, you have alcohol poisoning... severe overdose of alcohol, and a visit to the ER, or heaven.