Let’s continue in 140ch…

April 25 2010 by Teksquisite in social networking |17 Comments

Update for July 3, 2010: Whatever happened to #ch140 on #Twitter?

____________

While working on a Google doc about windows security tips for home users this afternoon, I asked @mikerigsby [Twitter] for windows security advice. Mike responded that he could “type “home internet security tips” into Google & 2 out of 1st 10 hits is malware.”

This revelation alerted @technobozo (Donna) to ask “Mike, where did you come up with those stats?” Mike responded, “it’s not an official %. Just from my personal experience.”

Unfortunately, we did not #tag these tweets, so I took the liberty to place this conversation into a Google doc – enjoy!

NOW Let’s continue in 140ch…

As Donna ended the conversation with >140ch, she left Mike and I completely dummiefied. Behind the scenes, we were direct messaging what “140ch” could possibly mean!

D mikerigsby “what is 140ch?”
D teksquisite “Lol. I was wondering the same thing.”
D teksquisite “140 characters but I totally didn’t get it either so don’t feel bad. Lol”
D mikerigsby “it just means 140 characters later! I was thinking it was 4square and meet in room 140ch LOL”
[Obviously I know nothing about Foursquare]

Until Next time – Stay safe online!

Tags: 140ch, ads, google, Internet security, SEO

17 Comments

At 2010.04.25 16:35, Donna Winter said:

I strive to baffle even the most brilliant of people.

What I meant was *drum roll here* that the idea of educating the general population was such a wonderful idea that we should continue our discussion in a format allowing for > (greater than) 140ch (140 characters, which is Twitter’s limit) and DMed you my email address

And, here Bev is, continuing on to the next step in >140ch. Mind you both, I’m giggling but sorry for the confusion!

#140ch ~ Donna

[Reply]
At 2010.04.25 16:45, Teksquisite said:

Hi Donna – LOL! And I was trying to figure out what special social networking site I was supposed to be going to! I do sincerely have a strong desire to continue this conversation. This is unfortunately my moving week – so I might be a bit succinct.
We could continue it here or via email or ?

Sometimes the best ideas are shared and you never know who else might tune in if it is in a public arena!

/Bev #140ch

[Reply]
At 2010.04.25 19:52, David said:

LMAO!!!! I just recently came off of a math class and did not get it! Brilliant!

[Reply]
At 2010.04.25 20:00, Mike Rigsby said:

It doesn’t take much to confuse me. I can be baffled by a chinese finger puzzle. :p

[Reply]
At 2010.04.25 20:20, Chris Muncy said:

/me looks around….

So Bev, have I missed anything??

[Reply]
At 2010.04.25 21:02, Teksquisite said:

haha – I would swear that you are on mIRC Chris

If you open the google doc – you should find what we are all on about. We won’t really get back into active discussion until Donna decides to drop back in. Mike is still actively trying to un-dummy himself from a prior DM fest

All we need now is cyberbofh, Pearce, and TexasIT to stop by LOL

[Reply]
- At 2010.04.26 09:39, cyberbofh said:
  
  What about GoogleWave? Isn’t that the ideal tool to have this “discussion/chat” ?
  
  [Reply]
  - At 2010.05.22 20:18, Tony Lamm said:
    
    I tried Google Wave and it seemed to have a lot of features.
    
    #140ch
    
    [Reply]
At 2010.04.25 22:34, intel_chris said:

Donna for RINGLEADER! Donna for RINGLEADER! Donna for RINGLEADER!

[Reply]
At 2010.04.25 22:44, intel_chris said:

Ah, I see you are finally letting the riff-raff in.

Anyway, I think this is a great idea. There’s a lot that could be done with this.

Of course, first things first. We probably need to define some searches that people are likely to do on Google to make themselves safer and show how many of them are infected with malware. Just a couple few would do for starters. A POC if it were.

[Reply]
At 2010.04.25 23:00, intel_chris said:

For me the hard part is knowing what links returned by Google are bad. I’m hoping that someone else already has technology for doing that. The same way I ask for help when I suspect a spammer, as I would just blindly fall into the malware trap and get myself infected.

So, is there something like a perl or shell script we can run on returned Google results to find malicious links? Or, is it a manual process?

[Reply]
- At 2010.04.27 20:26, David said:
  
  I use the Web Of trust add-on for Firefox. It does a good job at letting me know what links to avoid. it is not perfect by any means, (it is user driven) but it is helpful for the most part.
  
  [Reply]
At 2010.04.26 02:43, cyberbofh said:

ok.. what’s going on here?
I was (just a tiny bit) offline and it seems I missed a lot..

[Reply]
At 2010.04.26 08:23, Chris Muncy said:

Funny about IRC..

Up until about 2 years ago, I had at least one irc server,usually 2 to 3, opened up in Mirc since the early 90′s. Now the the interwebs have gotten more mature, I can usually get more and better information from other sources.

[Reply]
- At 2010.04.26 09:42, cyberbofh said:
  
  mIRC
  
  We oldskool use irssi
  (and it has a Twitter plugin too! )
  
  IRC still is a source for special info, maybe because it’s 31337 status
  
  [Reply]
At 2010.04.27 15:22, Teksquisite said:

“Now the the interwebs have gotten more mature” – I really like that comment Chris! I would like to use that in a future blog post – comparison between the early 90′s and now Where is the new page going to be?

[Reply]
At 2010.04.28 11:40, Chris Muncy said:

Need to get Greg (@Texas-IT) on here. We could probably implement what is already available on honestcomputerhelp.com.

And yes Bev, feel free to use my comments, but I wont be responsible for their results :p

[Reply]