Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Olympic Medalist was Spyware King 336

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the other-biathlons dept.
Remy writes "Seems that Australian gold medal mogulist Dale Begg-Smith is also a spyware entrepreneur. According to a report at Spam Kings, Begg-Smith has supported himself in style as president of a company responsible for generating 20,000,000 pop-ups per day, thanks to drive-by installs of spyware. I know the concept of Olympians being amateurs is outdated, but shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Olympic Medalist was Spyware King

Comments Filter:
  • Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:18PM (#14737821)
    ...unless spam or spyware is illegal in Australia, or against terms set by the International Olympic Committee (which probably includes stipulations for non-voliation of the laws of competitors' native countries), then no, he shouldn't be barred from competition.

    Also, on the subject of "amateurs", you can't be a "professional" in the sport you're competing in. There's nothing to say that someone can't be rich, or be a "professional" in some other field. He shouldn't be barred for "richly supporting himself" either, until installing spyware becomes an Olympic sport.

    Hmm. Don't give them any ideas.
    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)

      by AuMatar (183847) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:29PM (#14737908)
      No! THis would be a great sport in a biathlon.

      Sport 1: Competitive spamming

      Sport 2: Shooting. But we give the recievers the guns
    • Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Audacious (611811) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:43PM (#14738009) Homepage
      Also, on the subject of "amateurs", you can't be a "professional" in the sport you're competing in.

      Ummmmmmm....I do not think so. Pro-Basketball stars compete in the Basketball tournaments as do Pro-Ice Skaters (Michelle Quan?) Which is a bit sad since the Pros have already made it and it is the newbies that made the Olympics great. I understand that, as professionals, the people who compete have a chance to actually make some money while they are still young - but it used to be the atheletes competed to get the recognition. Now it's more like they compete to show off their backers. Almost like horses at a race track where the jockies have various brand names on their jackets (and I even saw a brand name on the blanket under the saddle once). Too much commercialism.

      <On a side tangent>In the Bible Jesus threw the merchants out of the church saying churches were a place of worship and not for the selling of wares. Should the Olympic committee take a hint from him and throw the merchants out of the Olympics because it is a place for amateurs and not professionals? (By this I mean the merchants are basically buying their way in to the Olympics whereas before no blatant displays were allowed and now they are allowed.)</side tangent>

      After all, what's the difference between watching the Indy 500, the WWW, or even a boxing match at Ceasar's Palace and the Olympics? None - if they keep going the way they are going.

      Going back to the original topic though, being Spyware King has nothing to do with being a "professional" athelete. Nor would having gained a traffic ticket (so long as said ticket doesn't land you in jail). It is not yet against the law to create Spyware although a lot of people (myself included) do not like or want Spyware. So until that is changed - whether or not this person creates Spyware has nothing to do with whether or not they should or could compete in the Olympics.
      • In the 1980s, amateurism regulations were relaxed, and completely abolished in the 1990s. This switch was perhaps best exemplified by the American Dream Team, composed of well-paid NBA stars, which won the Olympic gold medal in basketball in 1992. As of 2004, the only sport in which no professionals compete is boxing; in men's football (soccer), the number of players over 23 years of age is limited to three per team.

        From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympics#Amateurism_a nd_professionalism [wikipedia.org]
        • Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)

          by WebHostingGuy (825421) * on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:21PM (#14738265) Homepage Journal
          The amateur regulations were redefined because at that time the Soviet-bloc had paid "professionals" representing them at the Olympics. While they were not "professionals" in the Olympic definition (i.e., money for sport's performance) they were given token jobs in government or the military while for their day job they practiced their Olympic sport. You were talking about teams which had practiced together every day for eight years and whose only goal was to win gold at the Olympics. Contrast that against the majority of the other competitors at that time and you usually had a mismatch.

          I understand the reason for the change, but I think it did take something out. Take for example the 1980 US hockey win against the Soviets. Why is that so famous? Because a team of college kids beat the most "professional" hockey team at that time. It was a big win because amateurs beat the professionals. (Yes, I know Team USA practiced for over a year before the Olympics but that was nothing compared to the years of practice for the Soviets).

          Now, today in 2006, the US hockey team flew in the day before from all their NHL teams and then went on the ice the next day to play against Lativia. What is amazing in this 2006 game is that the "basically amateur" team from Lativia tied the NHL *super-stars*. Team Lativia went nuts after the game because they should have blown out. It made a big story because the professionals were almost beaten.

          For the NHL professionals (or any other professional competing) this is not something they are dying to win. A lot of the time they are more worried about their National endorsements (think basketball star controversy) and/or they are worried about not going all out because they might get hurt and injure themselves and hurt their professional career. (Yes, not all think like this, but enough do which takes away some of the spirit of the games.)

          Which would you rather see? A young amateur who goes all out and wins a gold after years of practice or a paid professional taking a week off from their competitive sport so they can try to pump up their professional career and get more shoe endorsements?
          • How about just seeing the best regardless of their status in a professional sport.
          • Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

            Now, today in 2006, the US hockey team flew in the day before from all their NHL teams and then went on the ice the next day to play against Lativia. What is amazing in this 2006 game is that the "basically amateur" team from Lativia tied the NHL *super-stars*. Team Lativia went nuts after the game because they should have blown out. It made a big story because the professionals were almost beaten.

            This is just ignorant. The US hockey team lost because:

            • unlike the latvian team, they had just flown in and
          • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by mikerozh (710568)
            For the NHL professionals (or any other professional competing) this is not something they are dying to win. A lot of the time they are more worried about their National endorsements (think basketball star controversy) and/or they are worried about not going all out because they might get hurt and injure themselves and hurt their professional career. (Yes, not all think like this, but enough do which takes away some of the spirit of the games.)

            This is completely wrong for team Canada and I'm sure for team

          • Actually... (Score:4, Informative)

            by Gordo_1 (256312) on Friday February 17, 2006 @02:27AM (#14740209)
            Although you've played to the conspiracy theorists who'd love to believe the myth that the high paid professional athletes really are a bunch of overpaid floaters who couldn't care less about the olympics, the truth is USA's tie with Latvia early on in olympic rounds was more or less predictable and quite common under such circumstances.

            The only two teams who are made up of 100% NHL players are Canada and Team USA. These two teams played for the gold 4 years ago in Nagano after handily beating all other strong hockey playing countries, which include Sweden, Finland, Russia and the Czech Republic. If you'll go back and look at the early rounds of each of the past several olympic games, the NHL-based clubs tend to do poorly early on and from time to time get beaten by teams made up of amateurs. Why is this?

            1. The players are often travelling to the other side of the world 24-48 hours before they are supposed to step on the ice and play. That's hardly enough time to compensate for jet lag. (Obviously, this was not an excuse at Salt Lake in '02...)

            2. NHL seasons are in full swing up to about 3 days before the first game at the olympics, meaning that the olympic teams made up of NHL players have little more than a single practice together in 4 months leading up to the games. That's not enough time to gel together as a cohesive team unit.

            3. Teams that win Stanley cups aren't made up solely of a group of all-star players. On championship teams, each player has spent a good deal of time learning to fill a particular role on the squad so that the team plays better as a whole than would be expected based on the individual talent of each player alone. These NHL "dream team" squads often lack an appropriate mix of key role players.

            4. Early games at the olympics are mostly meaningless. Given the circumstances (first competitive game together as a team) any professional coach will tell you it's more productive to spend time getting to understand each other's playing style rather than focusing on annihilating the competition as if it was the gold medal game.

            5. "...on any given Sunday". Hockey, basketball and baseball are sports in which a few random lucky bounces can dramatically change the outcome of a single game. It's quite common (maybe 15-20% of the time?) that a team is outplayed, yet wins a game because a ref call goes one way or the other, or the ball/puck takes a lucky bounce. To compensate for this randomness, MLB, NBA and the NHL have instituted best-of-5 and best-of-7 series to reduce (but never quite eliminate) the chances that the weaker team will advance. The Olympics is single-game elimination in the semi-final rounds and beyond, meaning even a significantly weaker team has a decent chance of advancing past a strong competitor.

            6. Hot goalies. More than any player on the ice, goalies have a huge impact on a team's overall results. A hot goalie can almost single-handedly win a game for a team that is otherwise badly outplayed. Witness the Czech Republic's beating of Canada at the 1998 Olympics for evidence of this. Stanley Cup champions almost without exception have very strong goaltending. It's not uncommon for a really hot goalie to turn aside 40-50 shots a game when his team fails him against a stronger opponent. These games can have surprisingly positive outcomes for otherwise badly outplayed teams if the goalie plays really well.

            With that said, go Canada!
        • In the 1980s, amateurism regulations were relaxed, and completely abolished in the 1990s.

          You glossed over the reason why Olympic amateursism died: Communist block nations employing atheletes to train all day. From the same wikipedia article:

          It gradually became clear to many that the amateurism rules had become outdated. For example, many athletes from Eastern European nations were officially employed by the government, but effectively given opportunity to train all day, thereby being amateurs in name only.

      • Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ackthpt (218170) *
        Should the Olympic committee take a hint from him and throw the merchants out of the Olympics because it is a place for amateurs and not professionals? (By this I mean the merchants are basically buying their way in to the Olympics whereas before no blatant displays were allowed and now they are allowed.)

        Hard to say. The IOC is about as big a whore as this guy. We tend to overlook it because they put on such a pretty show, but the IOC signs lucrative, exclusive deals with Television Networks, designates

      • The Olympics cost an awful lot of money to stage, mostly for the host country that has to build the facilities to house the games and the athletes. Corporate sponsorship is one way to defray such costs (or you know, line some pockets).
    • Further (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ackthpt (218170) *

      I know the concept of Olympians being amateurs is outdated, but shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?"

      ...unless spam or spyware is illegal in Australia, or against terms set by the International Olympic Committee [..] then no, he shouldn't be barred from competition.

      Seriously, since when has it been a precondition of The Olympics for an athlete not to be some horrid scumbag? For the most part you only see these people perform, a smile or tears for the camera, stand around o

    • WTF do you think the Americans and Russians were playing at for the last 20 years? In ancient history, they were professionals too, the amateur thing was a modern class inspired blip.

      Oh, except boxing... of course.

       
    • Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)

      by MarkChovain (952233)
      unless spam or spyware is illegal in Australia

      Spam is illegal in Australia [dcita.gov.au]. The worst parts of spyware [dcita.gov.au] are illegal too (deception, fraud, etc). The problem is filtering and/or how to behave during an operation. What I mean is that they have some knowledge of what can be addicting. You can do together.
    • Re:Well... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      He's a Canadian, living in Canada. Its controversial enough that he competed for Australia... this just puts more wood on the fire.
  • Then again (Score:5, Funny)

    by Janitha (817744) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:19PM (#14737827) Homepage
    Only if they had Spamming as one of the events in the Olympics.
  • by wiresquire (457486) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:20PM (#14737833) Journal
    As an Australian, let me be the first to disown him.

    Fuck you canada! You can have him back - and take this trashy medal with you on your way out.
  • No (Score:2, Funny)

    ... shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?

    No. I don't think I want the Olympics in charge of non-sports morality. They should have their asses beat by people that meet them, though.
  • Yeah (Score:5, Funny)

    by zardo (829127) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:20PM (#14737839)
    They could throw it into it's own category, like doping. "He was disqualified for spamming".
    • by Otter (3800)
      Yeah, even by the standards of the Obligatory Stupid Question, this one is pretty stupid. Whatever happened to good old "Could this be the first step towards widespread Linux adoption on the desktop?"
    • Re:Yeah (Score:5, Funny)

      by TekPolitik (147802) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:41PM (#14737992) Journal
      They could throw it into it's own category, like doping. "He was disqualified for spamming".

      Or they could do an interesting drug test - "We heard you are a spammer and need to find out if you have been using drugs. Drop your pants and stand next to this ruler."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:21PM (#14737843)
    is stuck at 99% usage. Maybe he'll freeze mid-jump and crash like the rest of the poor bastards he's helped infect.
  • by Rooked_One (591287) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:22PM (#14737852) Journal
    tend to do it in more areas than just one.... 20 mill annoyances a day is pretty good
  • interesting (Score:5, Informative)

    by coaxeus (911103) * on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:22PM (#14737854) Homepage
    This article reports him the president of "AdsCPM Network." http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/the-ski-dream- funded-by-a-spam-fortune/2006/02/13/1139679533728. html [theage.com.au] Which is mysteriously under construction right now. Handy archive.org has a copy from last month: http://web.archive.org/web/20050125100919/http://a dscpm.com/ [archive.org]
  • I know the concept of Olympians being amateurs is outdated, but shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?

    Amateur atheletes... they don't have to be jobless (even if that job is spamming).
  • but shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?

    I feel they should be barred from this planet...
  • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:24PM (#14737868)
    Skiing over in moguls in the Olympics is like running a spyware ring on the Internet.
    Even if you win, you're still a scumbag.

    Congrats [epsilonminus.com].

  • by llZENll (545605) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:25PM (#14737875)
    "but shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?"

    What relevance at all does spamming have to do with the Olympics? Why not just fire and ban spammers from all walks of life, jobs, restaurants, movies, etc, oh wait, it's a little something called freedom. As much as all us hate spam, child porno, junk mail, ads, laywers, etc, we must live them. It's something most people call "society".
    • As much as all us hate spam, child porno, junk mail, ads, laywers, etc, we must live them. It's something most people call "society".

      HOW DARE YOU sully child pornographers by placing them in the same category as spammers and junk mailers???!?!?!?!11111

      Seriously, though, I think you're making a big mistake here. Kiddie porn must never be acceptable in any society under any circumstances. Lumping that in with necessary (or unnecessary) evils that we tolerate is just plain wrong.

      For example, nobody lik

    • As much as all us hate spam, child porno, junk mail, ads, laywers, etc, we must live them. It's something most people call "society".

      I'm not sure what "society" you live in, but the one I live in calls child porno "illegal" and definitely not a freedom. The other stuff, sure.
    • As much as all us hate spam, child porno, junk mail, ads, laywers, etc,

      I think one of those might be illegal, actually...not sure.
    • oh wait, it's a little something called freedom.

      And it is why they need to be thrown in jail for "drive by downloading." In fact, I think it is already a felony in some states.

      Felons should not be allowed to compete in the olympics. Just like they don't allow "dopers."

      It gives the olympics a bad name.
    • As much as all us hate spam, child porno, junk mail, ads, laywers, etc, we must live them. It's something most people call "society".

      Spam is still (in itself) legal, so are ads and lawyers. Child porno is *not* legal (at least in most countries) and certainly not something you must learn to live with.
    • by Petrushka (815171) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:23PM (#14738288)

      Why not just fire and ban spammers from all walks of life, jobs, restaurants, movies, etc

      Sounds good to me.

      oh wait, it's a little something called freedom

      There's a little system that pretty much all societies have invented. See, when someone does something really outrageously wrong, something that harms society as a whole, society takes their freedom away from them. It's called "justice". Spamming is something that harms every computer user in the world. Justice is overdue.

    • by xtieburn (906792) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:56PM (#14738500)
      Well ignoring your utterly absurd mention of 'child porno' as a part of society, the second article clearly states a rule of the olympics.

      'The Olympic Code of Ethics says participants "must not act in a manner likely to bring the reputation of the Olympic Movement into disrepute."'

      Now given that spamming is illegal in many countries within the olympics, and because it is all over the internet it can gain vast public interest. Id say this breaks the code entirely and by allowing someone whod be considered a felon in many countries to compete, the Olympics are very much being brought in to disrepute.

      He has the freedom to spam. They have the freedom to kick him out of the Olympics. It's a little something called, freedom is a double edged sword. Welcome to society.
    • by StormReaver (59959) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @10:52PM (#14739208)
      "What relevance at all does spamming have to do with the Olympics?"

      Spammers surreptitiously install malicious software on people's computers against the computer owner's will or knowledge. It is illegal in the U.S.A, the U.K., and probably in Australia. I think criminal activity is enough to bar one from competition in the Olympics.
  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bobscealy (830639) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:25PM (#14737876)

    The olympics are judging competitors on thier sporting abilities, not thier business ethics. If Dale has broken some law then fair enough, chase him down with lawyers. Disqualifying him from the olympics would be on par with banning anyone who fails a doping test from running thier own business - they are completely unrelated.

  • Sad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeadPrez (129998) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:25PM (#14737877) Homepage
    You don't even attempt to mask your jealousy. Nerd athletes are the Xmen of the future. Sorry, Napoleon Dynamites of the world.

    ps: this is only a joke if rated funny and a serious warning all should heed if rated anything else.
  • Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:27PM (#14737884)
    If Jesse Owens was allowed to compete in the Berlin Olympics near the height of Nazi power, then I don't think any Olympic committee has authority to enforce a morality unrelated to sporting itself. An Olympic spammer in an online nation is no guiltier than a black Olympian in a racist nation.

    (Please don't misinterpret this as saying that Jesse Owens was somehow wrong.)
    • The Olympic Committee should have a morality that would force a black-hating nation to accept a black athlete for the games.

      And if they refuse, the OC should move the games.

      Likewise, they should ban criminals from competing, and bar countries that allow criminals to compete.

      The Olympics should have a sense of law unto itself.
    • How about, "don't misinterpret this as saying that spyware is somehow right."
  • 20,000,000? (Score:5, Funny)

    by AeroIllini (726211) <aeroilliniNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:30PM (#14737911)
    Twenty million popups a day?

    That's it?

    Pfft. That's like 100,000 infected machines, tops.
  • by serginho (909707) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:30PM (#14737914)
    it showed up in his urine sample. Man, these guys are getting really insidious.
    • by Ford Prefect (8777) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:37PM (#14737973) Homepage
      it showed up in his urine sample. Man, these guys are getting really insidious.

      Are, um, male appendage enhancement pills banned by the Olympic authorities?

      (Is it 'performance enhancing' if one has to lug a minor python around in one's trousers? I do hope for his sake he wasn't partaking in what he was most likely advertising...)
  • by yorktown (947019) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:31PM (#14737920)
    Given that the International Olympic Committe has chosen to hold their games in places that grossly violate human rights like Nazi Germany (1936), the Soviet Union (1980), and mainland China (2008), I don't think they have much moral standing to ban someone for spyware.
    • your correct but you forgot... USA Salt lake city 2002.
    • by Petrushka (815171) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:43PM (#14738417)

      That doesn't mean the Australian Olympic Committee can't ban him.

      What gives? Everyone's standing up for the rights of the spammer? I'll happily admit there are even worse crimes in the world, but those have penalties too.

      Let me remind folks that it was just this month that the Australian PM wanted to ban a New Zealand athlete from the Commonwealth Games because he had committed manslaughter, and had finished served his sentence nearly ten years ago. He's not a shining example, and manslaughter is more serious than spamming, sure. But where's the dividing line between crimes that are serious enough to warrant bans and crimes that aren'? What about robbery? embezzlement? white-collar crime? Now we're in grey areas. I'd say spammers are fairly high up the list of serious criminals who should be kicked out of an event which ostensibly (though not in actuality) is there to celebrate human dignity.

  • So besides drug screening, we should now "virus" (or in this case spyware) screen contestants as well? I AGREE!
  • They were talking about him being some sort of "business mogul" on NBC last night, my wife and I were wondering what business he was in that he was a millionaire in his teens. Now I know - but really, it has nothing to do with the Olympics. It doesn't make such a nice story (after winning his medal he goes home to his little old Lamborghini, how sweet), but unless he was doing something illegal it really shouldn't matter. Millionaire spyware mogul wins gold skiing moguls. Whatever.

    (and now for something
    • instead of actually showing us as much of as many events as possible (the reason I want to watch the Olympics), they waste precious hours of their limited coverage with lame feel-good stories that TV reporters seem to love so much.

      You must be new here....

      Seriously, I cannot remember an Olympics where the "human interest" stories were not the bulk of the coverage. I doubt NBC has cornered this market.
    • This is because NBC gears their coverage towards women and the American Idol crowd (which BTW kicks the Olympics ass in ratings).

      When you watch the Olympics and see commercials for baby stuff and feminine hygenie products as well as the soap opera type "human interest" stories you are made acutely aware that this coverage is not for the hard-core sports fiend. (ie men). Would NBC garner higher ratings if they went the hardcore sports route? Doubtful, men are not really the demographic of prime time tv in an
    • You need USA, CNBC, and MSNBC to get the full 400 hours.

      You're just getting the highly produced, packaged version.

      It's a little high on artificial drama and sappy anecdotes, but I think they do a pretty good job of production considering they have less than a day to put together every night's show. Consider the Tour de France, where, until OLN was broadcasting it daily (thanks Lance) you had to watch the distilled summary every sunday. They had no problem getting the viewer up to speed and making it dramati
  • by TheOtherAgentM (700696) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:33PM (#14737942)
    Spyware...Australian for advertising.
  • by StArSkY (128453) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:37PM (#14737972) Homepage
    .. he gave up his spyware business to focus on the olympics...

    Well at least the olympics are good for reducing spam right ?
  • Didn't they change that law to allow those who make money at their sport can now compete in the olympics? a la shawn white?
    • Not sure if it's wide open yet. I know basketball has been wide open since the Dream Team in 92. But I think a few sports still have reservations.
    • It's already true in sports like skiing, snowboarding, and hockey.

      Really, 'amateur' sport isn't any more noble or better than professional sport, it was originally conceived as an elitist ideal at the dawn of the modern Olympic games because only the rich could compete since they were the only ones that could fund their lifestyle and afford the time and money to be any good at 'amateur' sport.

      It's a restriction that should have been discarded a long time ago... because someone is 'professional' just means t
  • by Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:47PM (#14738034)
    check out his competition jacket...

    I bet it has 'sponsored by C1Alis! and Vi4gra! By online too satsfy you're lady"

  • by MrNougat (927651) <ckratschNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:47PM (#14738038)
    Someone should modify his Olympic medal so that it's got a flap on the front that "pops up" at random intervals and smacks him in the face, blocking his view.
  • he is an amteur (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Edmund Blackadder (559735) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @07:59PM (#14738122)
    From the original Slashdot story:

    "I know the concept of Olympians being amateurs is outdated, but shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?"

    Well, it is correct that the Olympics no longer require that the contestants be amateurs, but even if they did the Australian in question would still be an amateur. I.e., olympic athletes were always allowed to be professionals in some field but untill few years ago they were not allowed to be pros in the field they are competing in. So the quoted sentence does not make much sence.

    A think a much bigger issue is what this guy did may have been a crime in many of the countries he was doing it in. So should a criminal be allowed in the Olympics? I don't know ... but since he probably has not been convicted anywhere, I dont think the Olympic games is the correct place to judge him.

  • I don't see a connection between spyware & the olympics. Why ban him from the Olympics at all? Or why stop at banning him from the Olympics? Why not take away his driving privledges or his passport?
  • by Eric_Cartman_South_P (594330) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @08:04PM (#14738158)
    Take away his medal and give him an X-10 camera instead.
  • "...but shouldn't they be barred from competition for this sort of thing?"
    Shouldn't China be barred from entering the Olympics for their human rights violations? Nah, instead they'll let those commies host the Olympics.
  • who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by avi33 (116048)
    Maybe I heard a PR-friendly version of the story, but his parents wouldn't fly him and his brother around the world to compete, so they started a company to make some money. When he was thirteen. I made $3/hour at that age, and I was a high roller compared to my friends who couldn't even get jobs.

    So he was making crapware? BFD. With the possible exceptions of the EFFers and some folks at NASA, how many slashdotters haven't ever written code that doesn't pollute the world with wasted CPU cycles? Christ, I ju
  • Right after I blow his kneecaps off.

  • by The Pim (140414) on Thursday February 16, 2006 @09:01PM (#14738542)
    I heard about this guy's business while watching the men's mogul competition, so I looked it up on NBC's olympics site [nbcolympics.com]:
    At 13, the entrepreneur founded an online marketing company that he says has grown to the third-largest in the world. Begg-Smith originally started the Vancouver and New York-based company, which designs search engines and pop-up window blockers for about 5,000 websites, to fund his ski career.
    Which seemed a little fishy--why would an online marketing company want to block pop-ups? I guess somebody did a clumsy job of white-washing his bio.

Contemptuous lights flashed flashed across the computer's console. -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Working...