New rules to end 'blogger payola'

US regulators will for the first time crack down on bloggers who fail to disclose fees or freebies they get from companies for reviewing products. The Federal Trade Commission, FTC, decided to update its nearly 30 year old guidelines to clarify the law for the vast world of blogging. Offenders could face eventual fines of up to $11,000 (£6,900) per violation. The updated policy on how advertisers can use endorsements will also apply to celebrities and research firms. Until now, bloggers had not been covered by the guidelines - something which had concerned consumer groups. They had argued for a long time that the links between some bloggers and companies were not always totally transparent and clear for readers. "Consumers are increasingly dependent on the internet for purchase information," said Jack Gillis of the Consumer Federation of America. "There's tremendous opportunity to steer consumers in the wrong direction." There is nothing in the new rules about how disclosures must be made. "That's left up to the endorser," said Richard Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's division of advertising practices. "It can be a banner, part of the review. The only requirement is that it be clear and conspicuous." 'Material connections' The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final web guidelines, which will take effect from 1 December. The commission had unveiled a draft of the proposed policy last year. In a statement the FTC said "the revised guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. "Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service." The guides are not binding by law, but rather interpretations of law that hope to help advertisers comply with regulations. The new policy will also apply to Twitter, Facebook, Yelp and other forms of new media advertising. "The new rules on bloggers are the most far-reaching attempt to stamp some guidelines of conduct on the blogosphere, which in general operates according to informal codes and the notion that "inauthentic" bloggers - including those not disclosing commercial relationships - will suffer in the web's court of public opinion," wrote Michael Learmonth of Advertising Age. 'Trust' Reaction from the blogosphere to the FTC's new guidelines over what has been dubbed blogger payola has been mixed. "The concept of disclosure is not new to BlogHer. The trust of readers is everything," said Elisa Camahort Page, a co-founder of BlogHer the main news, entertainment and information network for women online reaching more than 15 million each month. "We have never been in favour of a universal code of conduct but we think that what the FTC has introduced is simple and achievable for anyone who wants a professional relationship with the market and to retain the trust of the reader," Ms Camahort Page told BBC News. Wayne Sutton, who is a social media strategist and hosts a social media podcast at TalkSocialNews.com agreed. "We're in a time when companies will try (to) leverage individuals who are community leaders or have a large audience for brand awareness...but if you want to keep them (readers/followers), being honest or "transparent" is the best way to do so." Jeff Jarvis is a professor of journalism at New York's City University and long time blogger and sees things differently. In a blog post he attacked what he called "the FTC's misguided, dangerous ad/blog endorsement rules." "I think that openness is the best fix for questions of trust and advise companies and politicians and certainly governments to become transparent by default as enlightened self-interest. "But mandating this for anyone who dares speak online? Foolish," wrote Professor Jarvis. On Twitter the issue became a trending topic. "New FTC proposed rules on product endorsements are big-brotherish in extreme, unworkable and downright dangerous," tweeted Dan Gillmor, director of the Knight Centre for Digital Media Entrepreneurship.

Thousands of Hotmail users hacked

Microsoft has confirmed that thousands of Hotmail accounts have been compromised in a phishing attack. BBC News has seen a list of more than 10,000 email accounts and passwords which had been posted online. The software giant, which owns the web-based e-mail system, said that it "had launched an investigation". Phishing involves using fake websites to lure people into revealing personal details such as bank accounts or login names and other private data. "We are aware that some Windows Live Hotmail customers' credentials were acquired illegally and exposed on a website," said a Microsoft spokesperson. "Upon learning of the issue, we immediately requested that the credentials be removed and launched an investigation to determine the impact to customers." Quick change Graham Cluley, consultant at security firm Sophos, told BBC News that the published list may just be a subset of a longer list of compromised accounts. "We still don't know the scale of the problem," he told BBC News. Technology blog neowin.net was the first to publish details of the attack. It said the accounts were posted on 1 October to pastebin.com, a website commonly used by developers to share code. Although the details have since been removed, BBC News and Neowin has seen a list of 10,028 names beginning with the letters A and B. BBC News has confirmed that the accounts are genuine and predominantly originate in Europe. The list included details of Microsoft's Windows Live Hotmail accounts with email addresses ending hotmail.com, msn.com and live.com. Mr Cluley advised Hotmail users to change their password as soon as possible. "I'd also recommend that people change the password on any other site where they use it," he said. Around 40% of people use the same password for every website they use, he added. Hotmail is currently the largest web-based email service. PERSONAL MESSAGE-Please change your passwords kids xxxxxxx

Bush Mp3 Audio-Photo-Video Player

Bush Mp3 Audio-Photo-Video Player,it's also a text document reader! so you can load E-Books and read them on the move!......i doubled my memory to 8gbs from 4gbs plus a leather case-ALL FOR £34.99

The Reason For NOT Blogging This Week!

Greetings Sweethearts,first of all to all the readers of my blog....thankyou for wanting to read,second you've notice for about a week i have not blogged,not to make a long story of this so here is the short version! last week 14 friends of mine died in a factory explosion,so i went to their funerals.........now on to other news....i have realised that most of you do not comment which is REALLY childish and pathetic but thats ok for you and me as i know your all nosey fucking pussy's hiding behind that computer screens of yours acting like nothing matters.........everything matters and hurts others to know that your un-intelligent morons!to all my other friends who do comment,yes max:) that includes you.......thankyou!!!

"Obamacare" Is a Big, Fat Lie

Single-payer coverage offers us the best chance of providing the best health care to the most people at the least expense. No. The last thing we need is government mucking up the best health-care system in the world. All we really need to do is put a cap on court awards for medical malpractice. Absurd. That'll address only part of the problem. What about the high "overhead" costs of the private health insurers? Don't be a twit. Those health insurers and their high premiums are the only thing keeping Medicare affordable. Private payers are subsidizing the below-market rates that Medicare pays for everybody else! Well, maybe. But come that's only because the private insurers pick and choose which clients they take on. Medicare gets stuck with all the high-cost old folk, and their pricey end-of-life expenses. Aha! Death panels ... ! Settle down, folks. You're both right. Each side (every side?) of the health-care debate contains its own kernel of truth. Everyone's "right" to a degree. But here's the dirty little secret behind the health-care debate: It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong. "Obamacare" is not going to happen. Or, at least, not in the form that anyone hopes it will. Universal health coverage for everybody, with the government picking up the tab in its role as "single payer?" D.O.A. Congress nixed this idea from the get-go. The closest we're going to get to that is some sort of "public option," and you can see the president backpedaling furiously away from even that half-measure as we speak. Why kill a good idea? Ask 'most any of your Canadian and British friends what they think of single-payer, and chances are good they'll tell you it's a decent system. Not perfect. There are waiting lines involved, and "rationing." But you get your basic medical needs covered, and you never have to worry about the bill. Just like democracy, single-payer coverage is probably the worst way to run a health-care system ... except for all the others. So why won't it happen? President Obama sums it up best: For us to completely change [the current health-care system] would be too disruptive. That's where suddenly people would lose what they have and they'd have to adjust to an entirely new system. The big "lie" Ostensibly, the president was arguing against taking away employer-provided health care and shifting the responsibility of bill payment to the government. But let's be honest, folks: When you get down to the nitty-gritty of doctor-patient interaction, it makes no difference who signs the check and mails it to the doc ... so long as it ain't us. So where's the "disruption?" You're soaking in it. The real disruption would happen to the system of private health insurance, and in particular, to the insurance companies that provide it. Switch to single-payer, and presto-changeo, UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH), Aetna (NYSE: AET), and WellPoint (NYSE: WLP) lose their raison d' etre. Now, single-payer proponents will argue that these companies aren't adding value to the health-care system anyway. They're toll collectors, paying the bills and taking their cut anytime a sick person visits a doc. Allow someone else (Obamacare) to pay the bills, and there's no reason for the insurers to exist. So what's wrong with letting them follow the horse-whip tanners and buggy manufacturers into the dustbin of history? Simply this: Love 'em or hate 'em, the insurers are just doing what we told 'em to do. They're collecting premiums, paying bills, and earning profits for their shareholders under the agreed "rules of the game." They didn't spend decades building lousy products, and drive themselves out of business like GM did and Ford (NYSE: F) nearly did. They didn't voluntarily hand out loans to acknowledged liars, racking up tens of billions in losses like Citigroup (NYSE: C) or Bank of America (NYSE: BAC). In short, they didn't do anything to deserve a date with a death panel. Nor do you Plus, there's the pocketbook issue. UnitedHealth, Aetna, and WellPoint currently carry $70 billion in combined market capitalization. Extrapolate to the rest of the industry, and we're probably talking well over $100 billion in investments that will be vaporized if we wipe out this industry. It's not fair to them. It's not fair to us. Companies won't stand for it. Investors won't stand for it. We won't stand for it. Who you callin' "we," buster? I'm calling you "we." And before you disagree, pull that mutual find statement out of the trash, shake off the coffee grinds, and give it a good read-through. You may be surprised to learn just how big a stake you already have in the health-care insurance industry. Same deal with your 401(k). Same thing for your pension plan. Simply put, we all have a lot to lose if the government nationalizes health care. Now for the good news: And that's why it won't happen. But the best news here for investors is: No one seems to realize this yet. Oh, Congress may nibble around the edges of the problem, limiting policy exclusions here (and letting insurers charge rates to accommodate), or expanding coverage there (more customers for the insurers -- boo hoo). But they know darn well that this isn't the kind of wholesale "change" voters were believing in last November. Yet investors are still sitting on their hands, and the P/E ratios on primo health-care stocks like Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) are sitting near multi-year lows. But not us. Here at Motley Fool Hidden Gems, we know an opportunity when we see one. We're watching the health-care sector like a hawk and pointing out the best bets to our members,-WAKE UP PEOPLE- before Congress DOES