Slashdot Mirror

If he is 'belligerent' then his argumentative intent is communicated in his belligerence, not in his used of the word 'alleged'.

See, I would take the view that the context affects the meaning of the word. I think that's how new shades of meaning get started. it begins as a purely contextual thing and ends up in the dictionary.

I think Lewis Carrol might have had some sympathy for this viewpoint:

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

I suppose you could argue it either way based on that exchange, but while Humpty Dumpty's position is a little extreme, I think I still agree with him in principle.

I think you're confusing a brand new meaning for a word ... with a negative association *externally attached* ... to a word which still fits the sentence in his original meaning.

I take your point, but that can't be the whole story, or else we'd never see shades of meaning evolve for words, and we do. Think about "hard" for instance. Princetown's wordnet lists over 20 meanings for that word, many of them quite similar, others quite distinct. Somebody must have once applied "hard" to liquor in a way that made sense in terms of the usage of the time. It didn't start out meaning "high alcoholic content".

Or, going back to "wicked" - that word probably gained it's meaning as "cool" as a sort of glorification of naughtiness (either juvenile or adult) - at which point you could have said "the dictionary definition fits adequately". Yet somewhere along the line, the usage became widespread enough that people accepted a new meaning.

If it helps any, my main model for this usage is Paul Merton on "Have I Got News For You", and a couple of my friends who picked up on it for a while.

I do understand how your particular interpretation occurred, if it helps any. I just can't bring myself to agree with it; to me, it's still an unnecessary leap.

Well, yes, I mis-read his post. I said that (to woomooloo rather than yourself, here) and that happens to us all. It's easy to misread context in a print only medium, and doubly so in an online debate where people tend to use conversational idiom whilst forgetting that the non-verbal cues will not carry across. I like to think I'm quite good on picking up on these cases, but I obviously got it wrong on this one.

The tile was then passed from student to student. As I said above, it was as hard as ceramic and as light as styrofoam. Even if an astronaut hit a tile deliberately with a sharp instrument, it is unlikely they could damage it.

I'm not sure what your teacher was showing you, but the Shuttle tiles are quite definitely fragile. See these articles:

If by any chance you do need to contact the tile with your hands, we would require only gentle hand reaction alone. We want you to distribute the load over several fingers or the backs of the fingers. Source

[The tile is] a rather soft piece of material. You can easily scratch it with your fingernail. It has ... a very thin layer of fiberglass on the outside. It's a fabulous insulator and NASA gave it to us to use as an insulator for an experiment we were doing. We were working at high temperatures and needed an extremely good insulator. So I had this tile sitting on my desk and it was a curiosity all along. And then it became much more meaningful when I realized that, gee, it wouldn't be very difficult at all to damage this. I could probably, with my finger, break through it. Source

The only known technology in the early 1970s with the required thermal and weight characteristics was also so fragile, due to the very low density, that one could easily crush a TPS tile by hand. Source

Rich.

Every time I read an article in the MIT Technology Review, I have this horrible annoying dissatisfaction -- it is as though their articles are written by somebody that needs to fill 4000 words with something that he really doesn't understand. Sometimes their articles are filled with buzzwords (nanotechnology! bioinformatics! what about the philosophy of this new tech???), and just have ideas that are not developed or under referenced. Even the tone is way too immature to be taken seriously.

Quotes like this:

>Yes, but so what? Silicon machines can now play chess better than any protein machines can. Big deal. This calm and
>reasonable reaction, however, is hard for most people to sustain. They don't like the idea that their brains are
>protein machines.

Is the idea of a brain as a protein machine ever subsequently discussed? The whole article is so scattered I find it difficult to follow any sort of thesis or actual information. I'm not trying to be overly critical, but *every* article in that rag is like that -- read a few issues and you will see exactly what I mean. He references the New York Times for opinions on human psychology, for instance.

For a *much* better read about the development of Deep Blue (and quite entertaining despite the subject matter) pick up a copy of "Behind Deep Blue" by Feng-Hsiung Hsu.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7342.html

This discusses in detail the choices the designers made regarding score weighting algorithms, and the various philosophies between a machine simply parsing all possible moves versus "thinking" what moves an opponent will make and the likely outcome of the current phase of the game. Excellent book for any nerd.

Yes, I went to MIT... :p

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7342.html This book is written by the creator of Deep Blue. He describes the Deep Blue project (This was not the original name) from his time at Stanford to the games played with Kasparov. The tweaking of Deep Blue did not happen in game but only before and after games. The so called opponents of Deep Blue (a couple of GM level players) were recruited only to help in the preparation of opening book. Kasparov had asked for the log of Deep Blue because he thought that the move was not thought by the computer but by some human sitting behind the terminal (basically he wanted to verify Deep Blue's moves), but the event co-ordinators rightly judged it as unfair as Kasparov was asking for the complete thought process of Deep Blue. The Deep Blue team was asked to show the move list to the co-ordinators who were satisfied with the logs. The book is a good read and the review that I have quoted above describes the development in a very lucid language.

There is no question that there is a band of iridium, but there are questions that
the iridium is related to the Yucatan impact:

http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/keller/ chicxulub.html

1. People who would have bought the product, but didn't because they downloaded it.
2. People who wouldn't have bought the product, but downloaded it and liked it enough to buy/recommend it to their friends.
3. People who wouldn't have bought the product, but downloaded it and didn't like it enough to buy/recommend it to their friends.

Brian Kernighan is very much alive; he is currently teaching undergraduates at Princeton. I happened to stumble into one of his courses by accident while shopping around at the beginning of the semester (COS333), and stuck around for the entire class. I'm glad I did: the man's a treasure trove of UNIX stories and experience, and a great teacher and mentor to boot.

Within a VM system, one will now find three types of systems running in the virtual machines.

1. Guest systems, such as Linux, z/OS, z/VSE, or even z/VM
2. General users using CMS in a PC like environment (sorry no GUI's, and yes there are arcane references to card punches, readers, etc. -- but question -- why does linux still have TTYs?). In the heyday before PC's, CMS provided an excellent end user environment for development, as well as a general computing platform.
3. And finally Service Virtual Machines (SVMs).

It is these Service Virtual Machines that equate to the topic of the original post. A SVM usually provides one specific function, and while there may be interdependence between SVMs (for example the TCPIP SVM that provides the TCP/IP stack and each of the individual TCP/IP services), they are pretty much isolated from each other. A failure in a single SVM, while disruptive, usually doesn't impact the whole system.

One of the first SVM's was the Remote Spooling Communication Subsystem (or RSCS). This service allowed two VM systems to be linked together via some sort of communication link -- think UUCP.

The power of SVM's is in the synergy between the Hypervisor system, and a light weight platform for implementing services. The light weight platform itself doesn't provide much in terms of services. There is no TCP/IP stack, no "log in" facility (only relying on the base virtual machine login console), and maybe not even any paging memory (letting the base VM system manage a huge address space). Instead a light weight platform will provide a robust file system, memory management, and task/program management. In IBM's z/VM product, CMS is an example of a light weight platform. The Group Control System (GCS) is another example (GCS was initially introduced to provide a platform to support VTAM - which was ported from MVS).

Part of the synergy between between the Hypervisor and the SVMs is that the Hypervisor needs to provide a fast, low overhead intra-virtual machine communication path that is not built upon the TCP/IP stack. In otherwords the communication between two virtual machines should not require that each virtual machine contain it's own TCP/IP stack with it's own IP address. Think more along the lines of using the IPC or PIPE model between the SVMs.

Since the SVM itself is not a full suite of services, maintenance and administration is done via meta-administration, in otherwords you maintain the SVM service from outside the SVM itself. There is no need to "log into" the SVM to make changes. Instead of the SVM providing a sys-log facility, a common sys-log facility is shared among all the SVM's. Instead of each SVM doing paging, simply define the virtual machine size to meet the storage requirements of the application, and let the Hypervisor manage the real storage and paging.

Maybe a good analogy would be taking a Linux kernel and implementing a service via using the init= parameter in the kernel to invoke a simple set up (mounting the disks) and running just the code needed to perform the service. Communication for other services would be provided via hypervisor PIPEs between the different SVM's. So one would have a TCP/IP SVM that provides the TCP/IP network stack to the outside world. A web server SVM that provides just the HTTP protocol and base set of applications, using a hypervisor PIPE to talk to the TCP/IP stack. Within the web server SVM, would use hypervisor PIPEs to talk to the individual application SVMs.

Then there are these guys: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ who have hardware random number devices placed all over, and purport to see non-randomness during major events.

yep: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

How does that follow? If you frequently go off on some weird ass jargon-filled tangent about some obscure scientific esoterica that no normal person would ever care about, then sure, that's going to put a crimp in your social life, because it demonstrates a lack of social skills.

But if you give a layman a reasonable overview of some issue that's actually relevant to the discussion, while restraining your tendency to sneer at stupid questions, and patronize people just because they don't already know what you're talking about, then you might find that some people are actually capable of being interested.

Feynman did a lecture series on quantum electrodynamics that was specifically geared toward people who didn't know what the hell quantum electrodynamics was. If you want to see an example of someone explaining a hard to understand topic to a bunch of people who have no background in a manner that is both accurate and entertaining, I highly recommend picking it up.

From Wordnet:
# S: (n) quarrel, wrangle, row, words, run-in, dustup (an angry dispute) "they had a quarrel"; "they had words"

They use it constantly on the BBC website.

Incorrect. Agnosticism is a philosophical position that God is unknown and/or inherently unknowable. In layman's terms, our subjective experiences are not capable of producing a knowledge of God. In other words, it is not possible to have knowledge of God, period...not that there is just insufficient evidence.

Atheism, however, is not restricted to those that assert the nonexistence of God. Its original meaning ("ungodliness") is no longer in common use. It has been applied to those that lack a belief in God, as well as those that assert the nonexistence (sometimes referred to as "strong" and "weak" atheism). Depending on your dictionary, you may have any of several definitions, but here's one that disagrees with you, and one that agrees:

wordnet: atheism

# S: (n) atheism, godlessness (the doctrine or belief that there is no God)

# S: (n) atheism (a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods)

Another word has come into use which perhaps more accurately reflects the second postion: nontheism (literally, "not theism"). This essentially equates to "weak atheism" or a lack of belief in God, without assertion. However, the "a" prefix is commonly used to mean "without," so "without theism" is a reasonable definition of atheism.

It would be nice if everyone used the same word to mean the same thing...but they don't. Most self-described atheists I know do not assert the nonexistence of God. Most theists I know consider atheists those who do assert the nonexistence (although from a Christian judgement point of view, the distiction is basically meaningless). Agnosticism is a more complicated topic than simple "absence of faith," and should not be used as an alternative to "weak atheism."

You are incorrect. Evolution is a theory based on the Scientific Method. As such it is definitely (1) Observable, (2) Measurable and (3) Repeatable. A Scientific Theory is not some idle speculation or unproven idea. Rather it is a model to explain and test specific natural phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

or more simply: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena.

The Theory of Evolution is not the same theory today as it was when Darwin proposed it over 150 years. A theory is dynamic and is modified/adjusted as new data becomes available.

Religion, in my opinion, just breeds stupidity, greed, self righteousness, and and fanaticism. The Founding Fathers on the United Stares of America were all very devote Christians, yet they saw fit to leave religion out of Government and Schools.

Or, your state is doing it anyway. Doesn't hurt that Ed Felten is a professor at a major college in your state.

That's "Doctor pompous moron", Mister Coward.

Ear, nose, and throat?

(Okay, I admit it, this was funny enough to disarm me. You win the tone argument.)

Pity the fool who tests something involving attention and doesn't find AC activation.

Anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is known to activate in tasks that involve conflict, especially when a prepotent (i.e., default) response must be inhibited so that a less automatic but more controlled task-appropriate response must be made. See the work of Jonathan Cohen (http://www.csbmb.princeton.edu/ncc/jdc.html) for more information on this brain area. It is exactly the area the experimenters would have expected to activate given their theoretical orientation.

And ACC didn't just activate because participants were paying attention. This was surely controlled for in a baseline control task and subtracted away.

You: We can beat city HALL! Wahhhh!

Seriously, when did RIAA proove THEY are not in violation of law with those spurious law suites of theirs?
I suggest we at least try to defend ourselves from abusive legal practices! Who's to say the practices of RIAA is not more destructive than file sharing - which has shown to actually increase music sales and artist recognition to a former buying audience!

Maybe, instead of suing people for all they are worth, a simple ethics class in primary school would ensure that any music downloaded and enjoyed would be purchased. That's high quality economics - not the pseudo date rape tactics of RIAA and similar organizations!

References:
1) http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten/boorstin-thesi s.pdf
2) http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813 .html
3) http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/
4) http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternetandTechno logy/bg1790.cfm


nuff said, cheers!

From http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/QM /lloyd_nature_406_1047_00.pdf [PDF]:

"The ultimate laptop performs 2mc^2/(pi)(Planck's reduced constant) = 5.4258 x 10^50 logical operations per second on ~10^31 bits."

(rather than the 1051 and 1031 quoted)

"Inutile"? Is that Italian or something?

inutile

Please inform me so I can mod you up.

Moderating and commenting on same story don't mix...

Your post is then... inutile?

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/p urple_america_2004.gif

The cities in the map are really no where like 100% one way, though some of the rural areas might be. The popular contest was pretty close as was the electoral contest. Mostly, in cities and in rural areas, the votes range in the 35%/65% to 65%/35% range. So the ideas that the cities would vote as a monolithic entity if we got rid of the electoral college, is, well, just fucking stupid.

Do you really need anything else?

Depends, I like having a module tracker handy (there are a few available for linux). For live-wire type stuf or general geekiness a fun audio tool to play with is ChucK. Marsyas is worth a look too.

Unfortunately the confusion comes from the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. Jurors asked for a definition of WMD'S and the judge instructed them that airplanes used as missiles are considered weapons of mass destruction. This obviously flies in the face of more traditional definitions which excluded conventional explosives unless they were used to dissipate chemical, biological or radiological agents. I think that people would be best served by using the more realistic UN or Office of Technological Assessment definitions instead.

Actually there is a lot of research being done to get around the need for a 'Dewey Decimal System'. The idea is to analyze relations between terms (names, datatypes, ect.) in an ontology. One could also compare relationships between terms: A child of B, C child of D, and A=B does B==A ?? Please note that these are examples of how terms and ontologies *could* be matched and not necessarily how someone would match terms. http://www.ontologymatching.org/ Also, http://wordnet.princeton.edu/ is a project I think is in the direction of a 'Dewey Decimal System' for knowlege.

The Princeton Sound Lab has created a bunch of tools for just this. You can "bow" the touchpad, for instance. There's a Mac-laptop exclusive utility that generates sounds based on the motion of the laptop (using the internal gyros or accelerometers or whatever).

> Game is not a verb.

No?

Now look-up the word "idiot".

Parent is correct. (GIYF)

See maps here:
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vot e2004/countymap.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/tcp/PurpleAmerica/

Hey, this was a great operating system for its day, and you should all know something about it. Take a look at Melinda Varian's excellent paper (PDF warning) on the history of the great operating system. Twenty years ago, I was running VM systems that ran 20 to 40 mainframe guest operating systems, long before VMware and Xen. VM still has the best implementation of Unix pipes I've ever seen.

I still miss VM and the v/Bear, though I have one on my car's keyfob...

Tools.
Some of you folks are pretty gullible.
Skew the vote 3% - 4%, within the margin of error. Plausible deniability.
This ain't rocket science with collusion.
There are just too many links, in defense of this.
Most of you have had your reality replaced, in other words you've been pwded!
They "hacked" your reasoning, said a few key words - boom!
"We don't need no stinkin' paper trail - NO!"
Blind to the obvious.
Substituted reality - the new bliss.

Authoritarianism, works every time.

Flame away, I'm out.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/wa s_the_2004_election_stolen

http://www.wheresthepaper.org/index.html

http://www.votergateproject.com/

http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

Until we test it on the fictional alien, I guess we'll never know. Knowing academia, though, and the propensity for grad students (and even older researchers) to engage in silly fads, it wouldn't surprise me if someone did a paper or article on it. As a great scholar once said, you can write your thesis on Gameboy if you can bullshit well enough.

Why does this seem so much like the Fair Share Schedular in Solaris 10? I think I know where they are getting there clues from. http://www.princeton.edu/~unix/Solaris/troubleshoo t/schedule.html

irony: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs

After getting AIDS from drinking blood, one probably wouldn't expect the introduction of more blood to fix the problem.

Hey, the one intelligent response I've seen in this whole thread (ignoring your last paragraph- it's a flippin 6 year regional trend- interesting, perhaps indicative of solar forcing (which is already accounted for), but not exactly a smoking gun that climate change science is wrong).

I would argue this: the warming mechanism is known and well established, and current trends support a decent amount of sensitivity to CO2. The negative feedbacks are speculative. Therefore, at this time, the null hypothesis should be that we are having and will have a discernible impact.

The level of uncertainty should inform what we as a society do. The thing is, there are a ton of things we can get going on that are no regrets (they save money) or low regrets (they don't cost much and have other non-monetary benefits). Can't we at least agree to get started on those? Here's a reasonable place to start.

... Species seems even more arbitrary then intelligence ...

There is, in fact, a very simple and exacting definition of a species. taxonomic group whose members can interbreed.

There is, in fact, no accurate way to measure intelligence. IQ only measures a certain type of intelligence (ie problem solving based "western" logic/philosophy/science). People educated using "western" methods of teaching and based on "western" thought/philosopht/science, tend to fare better because IQ tests ones ability to think using "western" methods. Someone who has had no education may be as intelligent as someone with an IQ of 145, but would get nowhere near that score on an IQ test.

The RIAA is more of a cartel then a monopoly. Tell me that doesn't sound like the RIAA.

> Quit trying to redefine the word free.

We should just leave that to you? Free doesn't exclusively mean without monetary cost. Monkeys audio is not free software, call it "freeware" if you like.

But ignore the semantics, no right thinking soul would trust archival storage to a proprietary codec with ambiguous licensing terms.

"Some people think that we're doing these deals to appear more 'friendly' and that's not it at all," says Hilf, with refreshing candor, as anyone who has spent time getting information out of Microsoft will tell you. "It's all about growing our business. And the dirty little secret here is that most customers of open source run it on Windows first."

...rogue?

The precursor to hack, which added at least a year to my sentence^Wstay at the University of Maryland in the 1980's?

The game referenced in the classic AI paper ROG-O-MATIC: A Belligerent Expert System?

You are doing a straw man. I was obviously not discussing the nature of religion, I was claiming that "To make [extreme claims without any basis in proof or reason -- when there are many competing theories and no reason any of them should be true] is very similar to religion".

Again -- that contradicts the position of most Xian churches since very early years. You can continue to cherry pick quotes all you want, but that is well documented.

I only discussed efficiency because you wrote "efficient stratagy for survival for humanity" (which looks like pre-1960s "good for the species"-thinking.)

Look up the word efficient (which you used first) on wordnet:

• (adj) efficient (being effective without wasting time or effort or expense) "an efficient production manager"; "efficient engines save gas"
• (adj) effective, efficient (able to accomplish a purpose; functioning effectively)

The people who design and build these telescopes don't have unlimited budgets. If they use up their grant money sending a telescope into space, they can't hire as many graduate students, for instance. While saving money isn't the primary concern for the principal investigator, it's certainly a priority.

The reason WMAP was a space telescope was, as you said, so that it wouldn't have to look through the water-vapor in the atmosphere. ACT and ALMA will be earth-based because it's impractical to send telescopes as big as those into space.

In summation, don't worry: astronomy funds are not being wasted!

Some of the ACT ( Atacama Cosmology Telescope ) computers run an old version of Red Hat.

The link is http://shape.cs.princeton.edu/search.html (without the trailing slash)

Go to: http://shape.cs.princeton.edu/search.html/ and select "Protein Database" from the drop down list, and enter "random" as the keyword. Next, the "find similar shape" links do full 3D feature vector matching against a database of 16900 protein molecule models, in a fraction of a second. But apparently this new method is "1500 faster than anything previously developed"? Maybe the authors never checked the current 3D shape matching literature?

I think it is worth noting that similar stuff was said about XP before it's release. Once XP was out it became pretty clear that the uptake was going to be very fast. Here we have slow uptake of Vista and comments made about switching after the release. It isn't entirely wishful thinking this time - though wishful thinking clearly come in to it to some extent.

The other point is that Linux has come a long was since Windows XP was released while Windows has... well, just look at Vista. The difference between Ubuntu 7.04 and Vista will be very small in comparison to the difference between Redhat 7.2 and Windows XP, which, in turn, was small compared to the difference between Redhat 5.2 and Windows 98. This is the real concern for MS - that while Linux might have been behind in desktop user friendliness it has been improving much faster than Windows.

An important little factoid that skews a lot of initiatives is threat substitution, i.e. replacing the truthful "Large wind farms will spoil our unspoilt horizon" with an equally truthful "even at 1 fatality per year, it could wipe out the Orange-Bellied Parrot". The first option was the true source of popular concern, but the argument was re-vectored to the OBP because that issue, while less popular, was more defensible in debate. This example is from a current fight happening in deepest Australia where I live.

I applaud saving the OBP, I applaud the switch from coal to wind, I applaud the conservation of natural beauty. It's an antinomy http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn/ that we have to deal with.

Hiding what could be world-saving, yet colossal infrastructure, is going to be increasingly important to us. Even huge reserves of hydro power, that which saved Tasmania from a reliance on the devistation of coal energy, was met with rather dramatic opposition in a more-ain't-better reaction ("Which would you prefer, an artificial lake or a strip mine?" was met with "Sorry, invalid question!" in the Gordon below Franklin dam issue).

So, let's please everyone we can. If we make huge undersea intarwebs to capture power (Auditors at 50 megameters! Ready the wave-motion gun! oh, sorry...) let's make them dolphin-safe. If we put wind power up, capture it in long underground plenums.

Hmm.... New idea. What if we were to dig a very large horizontal-ish tunnel, decreasing aperture to a turbine after (say) a mile or so, then having a smallish solar collector heat up the tunnel just a bit after the fan, with a second turbine to power the impeller -- would we end up with a very large, very-low-pressure jet turbine? Just curious...

I can not read the article. But if they built a half-adder, they can just cascade 2 half adder and got a full-adder.

In fact, at first I guessed I would see the domino logic in VLSI design http://www.princeton.edu/~wolf/modern-vlsi/Overhea ds/CHAP3-4/sld013.htm

Of course, we've been using domino logic for a long time.

odd: S: (adj) odd (an indefinite quantity more than that specified) "invited 30-odd guests"

I don't know if it's a regional thing nor where the original poster is from, but we use the word "odd" this way very frequently where I'm from.

"Oh, please," yourself. Revisionism needs to be done better than this bungle to have any hope of success.

I've been hearing this addage, fairly frequently, for 30+ years. But in it's *actual* classic form, which is pretty much as you originally posted it, not with the 'with each others' qualifier you've just added. In which form I have *never* heard it, until now. So if you actually thought "everyone had heard about it by now" in it's qualified form, you are very much mistaken.

For instance, you might read Bernard Lewis at:
http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_new/PAW02-03 /01-0912/features.html
It's somewhat apropos of my post, informative material by a guy widely judged to be rather thoughtful, and contains the addage in question.

I strongly suspect that anyone who can use a search engine will find many more references to this adage without your revisionist qualifier than with it.