top of page

Daily Motivation Tips

Public·1 member

Search Results For Winrar (31) !!HOT!!

Over the weekend, crypto influencer Alex, better known by their online persona NFT God, was hacked after launching a fake executable for the Open Broadcaster Software (OBS) video recording and live streaming software they had downloaded from a Google ad in search results.

Search results for winrar (31)


The distribution method was unknown at the time but separate reports in December from cybersecurity companies Trend Micro and Guardio revealed that hackers were abusing the Google Ads platform to push malicious downloads in search results.

Security researcher Will Dormann found that fake Notepad++ downloads in the sponsored section of Google search were available from additional URLs, all files being marked as malicious by various antivirus (AV) engines on the Virus Total scanning platform.

BleepingComputer also found a website filled with fake software downloads distributed solely via Google Ads search results. The website impersonates what appears to be a legitimate web design company in India called Zensoft Tech.

Unfortunately, we could not verify if the downloads were malicious but given that the domain is a typosquatted URL, the site blocks search engines from indexing content and promoting the downloads only through ads in search results, there is a strong indication of malicious activity.

Several security researchers (mdmck10, MalwareHunterTeam, Will Dormann, Germán Fernández) have uncovered additional URLs hosting malicious downloads impersonating free and open-source software, confirming that luring users through sponsored results on Google search is a more common approach for cybercriminals.

The researcher also came across the Vidar info-stealer delivered via malicious downloads for Blender 3D advertised in Google Search. Vidar is focused on collecting sensitive info from browsers and can also steal cryptocurrency wallets.

The interactive map is built using Adobe's Flash technology. The Adobe Flash plug-in is required for these applications to function within your web browser. Mobile operating systems such as newer versions of Google Android and any Apple iOS will not be able to access these applications due to lack of support for Adobe's Flash on these platforms. The text search is recommended as a viable alternative for those devices.

The search functionality is broken down into a simplified form in an effort to make searching for data easier. Think of your searches in the form of a phrase, such as "I want to find precipitation data from May 13, 2005 to May 25, 2005 in the state of California." First select the weather observation or dataset from the drop down list. Then select the beginning and end of the date range from the calendars making sure to click in the order: month, year, day. Next, select the type of search, whether station search or geographic location search. Then type in the name, abbreviation, identifier, or ZIP code in the next field. This method works for all datasets and for all types of searches, whether by station, country, state, county, ZIP, Climate Division, or Hydrologic Unit.

Once all parts of the form are completed, click on the "SEARCH" button to be taken to the search results page. This page features the search results in the left pane and the map showing where each of the results appear.

Enter any of the following: state, city, county, ZIP, or geographic area. FIPS (Federal Information Processing Standard) identification codes can also be used. State abbreviations are preferred via search, so use TX instead of Texas, NC instead of North Carolina, etc. If using the full names of states that have more than one word in the titles, use quotes around the name to receive better search results: i.e. "North Dakota", "South Carolina", etc.

The search also allows users to find specific stations by searching using any word in the station name. Or, if a specific station ID is known, the WBAN, GHCND, FAA, ICAO, NWSLI, or COOP ID can be entered to quickly find that particular station.

Use the terms AND and NOT to include or exclude search results. Using the previous example, if the search Paris NOT TX is entered then all search results that include the term Paris but exclude TX will be displayed.

Station searches may be limited to a specific state or country using the prefixes STATE or COUNTRY. Simply enter the prefix with a colon separating the prefix and the state or country name to be searched.

Simply put, no. All data is available for searching, downloading, and access for no charge. Only certain products from the online store have a charge for items or services. Certification of data does have a charge associated with it, but this is also handled via the online store.

Wikipedia gained early contributors from Nupedia, Slashdot postings, and web search engine indexing. Language editions were created beginning in March 2001, with a total of 161 in use by the end of 2004.[38][39] Nupedia and Wikipedia coexisted until the former's servers were taken down permanently in 2003, and its text was incorporated into Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia passed the mark of two million articles on September 9, 2007, making it the largest encyclopedia ever assembled, surpassing the Yongle Encyclopedia made during the Ming dynasty in 1408, which had held the record for almost 600 years.[40]

In November 2009, a researcher at the Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, Spain found that the English Wikipedia had lost 49,000 editors during the first three months of 2009; in comparison, it lost only 4,900 editors during the same period in 2008.[50][51] The Wall Street Journal cited the array of rules applied to editing and disputes related to such content among the reasons for this trend.[52] Wales disputed these claims in 2009, denying the decline and questioning the study's methodology.[53] Two years later, in 2011, he acknowledged a slight decline, noting a decrease from "a little more than 36,000 writers" in June 2010 to 35,800 in June 2011. In the same interview, he also claimed the number of editors was "stable and sustainable".[54] A 2013 MIT Technology Review article, "The Decline of Wikipedia", questioned this claim, revealing that since 2007, Wikipedia had lost a third of its volunteer editors, and that those remaining had focused increasingly on minutiae.[55] In July 2012, The Atlantic reported that the number of administrators was also in decline.[56] In the November 25, 2013, issue of New York magazine, Katherine Ward stated, "Wikipedia, the sixth-most-used website, is facing an internal crisis."[57]

On January 20, 2014, Subodh Varma reporting for The Economic Times indicated that not only had Wikipedia's growth stalled, it "had lost nearly ten percent of its page views last year. There was a decline of about two billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Its most popular versions are leading the slide: page-views of the English Wikipedia declined by twelve percent, those of German version slid by 17 percent and the Japanese version lost nine percent."[69] Varma added, "While Wikipedia's managers think that this could be due to errors in counting, other experts feel that Google's Knowledge Graphs project launched last year may be gobbling up Wikipedia users."[69] When contacted on this matter, Clay Shirky, associate professor at New York University and fellow at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society said that he suspected much of the page-view decline was due to Knowledge Graphs, stating, "If you can get your question answered from the search page, you don't need to click [any further]."[69] By the end of December 2016, Wikipedia was ranked the fifth most popular website globally.[70]

In the Seigenthaler biography incident, an anonymous editor introduced false information into the biography of American political figure John Seigenthaler in May 2005, falsely presenting him as a suspect in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.[101] It remained uncorrected for four months.[101] Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today and founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, called Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and asked whether he had any way of knowing who contributed the misinformation. Wales said he did not, although the perpetrator was eventually traced.[102][103] After the incident, Seigenthaler described Wikipedia as "a flawed and irresponsible research tool".[101] The incident led to policy changes at Wikipedia for tightening up the verifiability of biographical articles of living people.[104]

According to the rules on the English Wikipedia community, each entry in Wikipedia must be about a topic that is encyclopedic and is not a dictionary entry or dictionary-style.[121] A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability", which generally means that the topic must have been covered in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of the article's subject.[122] Further, Wikipedia intends to convey only knowledge that is already established and recognized.[123] It must not present original research.[124] A claim that is likely to be challenged requires a reference to a reliable source, as do all quotations.[121] Among Wikipedia editors, this is often phrased as "verifiability, not truth" to express the idea that the readers, not the encyclopedia, are ultimately responsible for checking the truthfulness of the articles and making their own interpretations.[125] This can at times lead to the removal of information that, though valid, is not properly sourced.[126] Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.[127]

Wikipedia does not require that its editors and contributors provide identification.[143] As Wikipedia grew, "Who writes Wikipedia?" became one of the questions frequently asked there.[144] Jimmy Wales once argued that only "a community ... a dedicated group of a few hundred volunteers" makes the bulk of contributions to Wikipedia and that the project is therefore "much like any traditional organization".[145] In 2008, a Slate magazine article reported that: "According to researchers in Palo Alto, one percent of Wikipedia users are responsible for about half of the site's edits."[146] This method of evaluating contributions was later disputed by Aaron Swartz, who noted that several articles he sampled had large portions of their content (measured by number of characters) contributed by users with low edit counts.[147] 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page