Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

MacKeeper is a strange piece of software. There may be no other app as controversial in the Apple world. The application, which performs various janitorial duties on your hard drive, is loathed by a large segment of the Mac community. Check out any blog, site or forum that mentions it, and you'll find hundreds of furious comments condemning MacKeeper and Zeobit, the company behind it. We discovered this ourselves earlier this month, when we offered a 50%-off deal on MacKeeper. Look at all those furious comments on the post. The complaints about MacKeeper are all over the shop: It's a virus. It holds your machine hostage until you pay up. It can't be completely removed if you decide to delete it. Instead of speeding up your computer, it slows it down. It erases your hard drive, deletes photos, and disappears documents. There are protests about MacKeeper's annual subscription fees. Zeobit is slammed for seedy marketing tactics. It runs pop-under ads, plants sock-puppet reviews and encourages sleazy affiliate sites, critics say. But what's really strange is that MacKeeper has been almost universally praised by professional reviewers. All week I've been checking out reviews on the Web and I can't find a bad one. All the reviews praise the software for being well designed and easy to use. Macworld magazine calls it "a gem." TUAW gives it a favorable review. Dave Hamilton of Backbeat Media, a Mac industry veteran, recently talked it up at Macworld Expo. None of the professional reviewers complain of slowed-down machines or deleted data. Given the comments on our deals post, I started researching Zeobit and MacKeeper. (Our deals, by the way, are determined by our partners, StackSocial.) I was alarmed that Cult of Mac might be promoting malware, but quickly became curious why such well-reviewed software gets such bad reviews from users. I reached out to Zeobit and Symantec, which publishes anti-virus and security software under the Norton brand

/Zimbio/ - Invisible Man is a novel written by Ralph Ellison, and the only one that he published during his lifetime (his other novels were published posthumously). It won him the National Book Award in 1953. The novel addresses many of the social and intellectual issues facing African-Americans in the early twentieth century, including black nationalism, the relationship between black identity and Marxism, and the reformist racial policies of Booker T. Washington, as well as issues of individuality and personal identity. In 1998, the Modern Library ranked Invisible Man nineteenth on its list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century. Time magazine included the novel in its TIME 100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005.[1] Historical background In his introduction to the 30th Anniversary Edition of Invisible Man,[2] Ellison says that he started writing the book in a barn in Waitsfield, Vermont in the summer of 1945 while on sick leave from the Merchant Marine and that the novel continued to preoccupy him in various parts of New York City. In an interview in The Paris Review 1955,[3] Ellison states that the book took five years to complete with one year off for what he termed an "ill-conceived short novel." Invisible Man was published as a whole in 1952; however, copyright dates show the initial publication date as 1947, 1948, indicating that Ellison had published a section of the book prior to full publication. That section was the famous "Battle Royal" scene, which had been shown to Cyril Connolly, the editor of Horizon magazine by Frank Taylor, one of Ellison's early supporters. Ellison states in his National Book Award acceptance speech that he considered the novel's chief significance to be its experimental attitude. Rejecting the idea of social protest-as Ellison would later put it-he did not want to write another protest novel, and also seeing the highly regarded styles of Naturalism and Realism too limiting to speak to the

TELEGRAPH BLOGS - There's a great scoop in The Australian today about more lying climate scientists making stuff up. CLAIMS that some of Australia's leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner. Timothy Pilgrim was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to "more secure buildings" following explicit threats. Needless to say the University did everything it could to prevent the investigation, arguing that the release of the climate scientists' emails (why am I getting an eerie sense of deja vu here?) "would or could reasonably be expected to…endanger the life or physical safety of any person". But doughty Sydney blogger Simon Turnill appealed against this stonewalling drivel and won. And here's what was revealed when the 11 relevant emails were eventually released. Ten of the documents "did not contain threats to kill or threats of harm." Of the 11th, the Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim said: "I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance." No wonder the university was so keen to keep things quiet. Contrary to the claims of the "climate" "scientists" - widely reported, of course, in the left-wing media - there had been no death threats whatsoever. Yet their vice-chancellor at the time - now the Australian government's Chief Scientist - Professor Ian Chubb decided to move them to "more secure buildings" without, he now admits, having read the emails to see whether these threats actually existed. Maybe it's time someone did an FOI to see whether the UEA's dodgy and discredited Phil Jones really did get any of those "death threats" he claims to have received after Climategate and which

Facebook has announced another round of updates to previous drafts of its terms of service named Statements of Rights and Responsibilities in an attempt to ease concerns on information sharing and privacy. "Based on your feedback during the recent comment period for our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR), we have decided to revise some proposed changes and further explain many others. We are also re-opening our comment period," Facebook said. One of the most prominent changes in the SRR is the removal of a line that says: "Some or all of Facebook's services and features may not be available to users in certain geographic areas. We reserve the right to exclude or limit the provision of any service or feature in our sole discretion." Most Norton Scientific Collection feedback had asked if this meant that the social network could censor activities posted by activists or other users. Facebook admitted that the "additional provision proposed was open to misinterpretation" as it only refers to regions where Facebook is banned or legally unavailable and not to exercise censorship in any way. The move to address another of the most concerning privacy issues is a good point for the company. It is regarding their terms about a user's friends having the capability to grant any apps access to the user's data. Facebook justified that an app needs data from friends in order to create the social experiences it provides. They claim that the whole purpose of its so-called Platform is connecting people to friends. As to how users can prevent their friends from dragging their data to apps they don't like, Facebook said: "If you do not want your friends to bring pieces of your information over to the apps they use, you can set granular controls under Apps and Websites from your Privacy Settings page on Facebook. There, you can control most of the information friends can share about you and even block individual apps. You also can t

NORTON SCIENTIFIC NEWS - Facebook has announced another round of updates to previous drafts of its terms of service named Statements of Rights and Responsibilities in an attempt to ease concerns on information sharing and privacy. "Based on your feedback during the recent comment period for our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR), we have decided to revise some proposed changes and further explain many others. We are also re-opening our comment period," Facebook said. One of the most prominent changes in the SRR is the removal of a line that says: "Some or all of Facebook's services and features may not be available to users in certain geographic areas. We reserve the right to exclude or limit the provision of any service or feature in our sole discretion." Most Norton Scientific Collection feedback had asked if this meant that the social network could censor activities posted by activists or other users. Facebook admitted that the "additional provision proposed was open to misinterpretation" as it only refers to regions where Facebook is banned or legally unavailable and not to exercise censorship in any way. The move to address another of the most concerning privacy issues is a good point for the company. It is regarding their terms about a user's friends having the capability to grant any apps access to the user's data. Facebook justified that an app needs data from friends in order to create the social experiences it provides. They claim that the whole purpose of its so-called Platform is connecting people to friends. As to how users can prevent their friends from dragging their data to apps they don't like, Facebook said: "If you do not want your friends to bring pieces of your information over to the apps they use, you can set granular controls under Apps and Websites from your Privacy Settings page on Facebook. There, you can control most of the information friends can share about you and even block individual apps. You