Slashdot Mirror

But while the examples scramble every word, the thesis is that not every word need be scrambled and that any scrambled word can be derived from context.

The second sentence in my (the GP) post contains no misspellings. I wrote "pair form" and I meant "pair form". If you misread it as "pair from" that's an error on your part, not a valid correction.

I don't discount the phenomenon, only that it is stated too simplistically as a general case in a way that is easily disproven. If it were that easy, even a machine should be able to correct anything so scrambled without any special logic to even understand what is being written (and just as rapidly as the human brain provided the right relational database).

I've submitted my observations to snopes.com on this topic, including a link to this subthread, as an update to their article on the topic.

The "paper" is cited as saying correct spelling is unimportant. However, it doesn't say that the letters in the middle are unimportant, only their order. They still contain the correct letters. (Otherwise, no one w3d h2e any p6m u11g t2s p4e and we'd have discovered a new efficient standard for compressing English text.)

It boils down to saying that having only the correct first and last letter makes solving a scrambled word easy. Apart from the three example anagram pairs I've cited, that is correct in English. But those three examples disprove it as a rule with no exceptions as it is generally taken.

And it makes light of the plight of dyslexics. Not that I have a horse in that race.

Reading around - I couldn't find confirmation this is true, but reading this forum post suggests that Sony had nothing to do with adult films not being on Betamax.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=2126

After all Beta was an open standard in this sense. I could buy a bunch of beta tapes, film a bunch of people doing it - and sell them without Sony being any wiser.

Not according to Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/donkeykong.asp

Speaking of idiots, why don't you check snopes before trotting out that little bit of folk lore?

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/barometer.asp

And just to make you feel worse...

http://www.snopes.com/photos/advertisements/bigburger.asp

In January 2005, a 100-pound woman became the first person to win the Denny's Beer Barrel Pub challenge when 19-year-old Kate Stelnick of Princeton, New Jersey, downed a six-pound Denny's "96er" hamburger and five pounds of fixins' in 2 hours and 54 minutes, just shy of the three-hour time limit. For her trouble, Ms. Stelnick got a special certificate, a T-shirt, and other prizes, as well as having her tab for the $23.95 burger picked up by the house.

(There's other links if you google her name...I just got the snopes one first)

If only they made some of those robots similar to Serge Graystone; or perhaps, more appropriately, to few targetbots we've seen in the pilot.

I'm waiting for the robotic kangaroos with Stinger missiles:

Eager to demonstrate their flying skills for some visiting American pilots, the hotshot Aussies "buzzed" the virtual kangaroos in low flight during a simulation. The kangaroos scattered, as predicted, and the Americans nodded appreciatively . . . and then did a double-take as the kangaroos reappeared from behind a hill and launched a barrage of stinger missiles at the hapless helicopter.

This was the first thing I thought of when I saw the story! Shoot Me Kangaroo Down Sport

Citation:

http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp

The percentage is probably lower than 90% (33% to 50% in one study, 75% in another, 80% in a fourth, and a staggering 97% in a fifth).

You know 40 years ago people were saying that the "big oil companies" were buying up patents so the 100MPG carburetors wouldn't get to market and destroy their business plan, so you know what happened, the patents ran out and companies started make these wonder devices and they either worked less efficient than the modern computer controlled fuel injector systems we have now or they didn't work at all. If I had invented such a wondrous device, why would I or anyone sell out to one company when I could license to all of them? Hell I'd be as rich as Bill Gates and the oil companies would be delivering my royalty checks via hookers in limos that had cocaine in the sugar bowls, if I had invented one of these to-good-to-be-true disruptive devices!

Sorry but the real world doesn't work that way; yes I know Microsoft does it to little MomAndPop software houses, but that's small potatoes compared to real disruptive technology.

Could it be they're just trying to stir up controversy to increase their head-space and sell more boxes of Old Faithful (TM) before New and Inferior (TM) becomes the norm?

Ah, yes. The rarely seen New Coke fallacy.

"Why the fuck are we putting them back on the road?"

Because a lot of members of Congress are drunk drivers.

It's funny but not a real quote.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.asp

BZZT! And that's the incredibly wrong answer that we were looking for!

Thanks for playing the "regurgitate-urban-legend-bullshit" game - you've won the ridicule of your online peers.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

Anonymous Coward? Tell him what else he's won!

NASA spent millions to develop a pen that could write in space... the Russians used a pencil.

Someday, people will stop repeating this falsehood.
I fear that day is not coming anytime soon, though.

Actually, thats a myth.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

The "space pen" was developed independently from NASA and NASA did in fact use pencils on several early missions.

Why are you surprised? NASA spent millions to develop a pen that could write in space... the Russians used a pencil. Sometimes people look for a really complicated solution instead of going for something cheap and cheerful that gets-the-job-done.

LOL!

I mean, no. No they didn't. This is an urban legend perpetuated by petty anti-government types. Educate thy self: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp You'll note how well snopes goes into this "conspiracy" For example, two different Hawaii newspapers printed a birth announcement for him. The whole birther thing, well its bull. I'm sorry.

Snopes sources should help you some.

Hinkelman, Michael. "Judge Rejects Montco Lawyer's Bid to Have Obama Removed from Ballot." Philadelphia Daily News. 25 October 2008.

Koppelman, Alex. "Sex, Lies and Creatively Edited Interviews with Sarah Obama." Salon. 5 December 2008.

Nakaso, Dan. "Obama's Certificate of Birth OK, State Says." Honolulu Advertiser. 1 November 2008.

Nakaso, Dan. "Hawaii: Obama Birth Certificate Is Real." Honolulu Advertiser. 27 July 2009.

Nakaso, Dan. "Hawaii officials confirm Obama's Original Birth Certificate Still Exists." Honolulu Advertiser. 28 July 2009.

Voell, Paula. "Teacher from Kenmore Recalls Obama Was a Focused Student." The Buffalo News. 20 January 2009.

Associated Press. "State Department of Health Declares Obama Birth Certificate Legal." Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 31 October 2008.

Associated Press. "Challenge to Obama Is Dismissed." The New York Times. 5 March 2009.

The Economist. "Born Under a Bad Sign." 28 November 2008.

I wonder why you would find suck a law hideously broken. There was a story in montana of an 11 year old girl who shot and killed 2 intruders in her home. She didn't even know it at the time, but one was armed with a handgun and the two had stabbed a guy to death in a previous break-in. The fact that they probably would have killed her has nothing to do with the fact that hadn't threatened her with a weapon and I doubt you'd suggest we put an 11 year old girl in court and executed for murder charges for that.

... this whole thing must be part of some diabolically clever evil plan.

You mean like New Coke was?

Reminds me of a certain expensive pen...

Although the space pen/pencil tale it is a good story, unfortunately the truth is a little more complex.

P.S.: see e.g. tagged for an example of such security issues (they take your contacts and spam them without your consent (or at least in a very sketchy way anyway)).

Harder than not testing with real (as opposed to realistic) data in the first place, or so it would seem.

http://www.snopes.com/business/consumer/bastard.asp

I have no doubt that are many people who just want to waste the nations tax money with frivolous requests. Up to January of this year I still had conservative persons that were sure there would be a January 26 trail in which Obama would be removed from office. Of course anyone who would read knew this was not the case, and wondered why conservatives would support deserters. In any case, I can only speculate the number of frivolous requests generated by the belief that this trial was going to happen, and the anger when it did not.

There are many other cases. Who knows how many requests are related to acorn and the fraudulence tapes collected by the criminals who attacked the duly representatives of this country. As I said, I would probably like to see more FOI requests accepted, but without a context it is difficult to say whether this is possible.

I have no doubt that are many people who just want to waste the nations tax money with frivolous requests. Up to January of this year I still had conservative persons that were sure there would be a January 26 trail in which Obama would be removed from office. Of course anyone who would read knew this was not the case, and wondered why conservatives would support deserters. In any case, I can only speculate the number of frivolous requests generated by the belief that this trial was going to happen, and the anger when it did not.

There are many other cases. Who knows how many requests are related to acorn and the fraudulence tapes collected by the criminals who attacked the duly representatives of this country. As I said, I would probably like to see more FOI requests accepted, but without a context it is difficult to say whether this is possible.

and you know what ? they were both right.

Nope.

But maybe lemmings have invented religion and that's why they kill themselves.

Snopes to the rescue!

Then just like frogs, we will get out once the water is too hot. [Citation Provided]

True. It's like the rainbow flags displayed in certain dorm rooms or buildings. The extra attraction is like the wardriving signs on the sidewalk: "come see here what you wouldn't otherwise know unless you spent lots of energy." Obviously, the minorities do want to lessen the burden in getting sex, and since potentially embarrassing events of "no! what made YOU think I am gay too!" could prevent other interested minorities from pairing up sexually.

Compare to gay handkerchief codes and sex wristbands. The latter are somewhat of an urban legend (see snopes). Highschoolers wear the bands to show various sex acts the were willing to commit with you. Saves people with similar tastes time getting close enough to otherwise potentially uninterested partners to actually inquire if they give head / hug / do anal, etc.

Codes are a neat idea, and wish geeks had their own shag code too; we only get to wear silly t-shirts where an obscure enough reference will fail to get another geek interested in you. There is geek code, and I think even a sex gee code, but those are extremely without translation tools, and only work in forums, and not something you can wear for everyone to see IRL.

just wait until they run into real missile-toting kangaroos!

Snopes says false on that one: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

That is an urban legend.

If there's a disagreement about where a comma should be placed, you should discuss it on the talk page and abide by the consensus agreement. If you want to dispute the decision, there are ways of resolving disputes that don't involve an edit war. The placement of a comma can make a huge difference in the meaning of a sentence.

Sounds like a version of this urban legend.

...that almost passed the bill setting the value of pi to 3?

Probably not: http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.asp

Yeah, that was propaganda spread by the facist controlled media to aid their grip on power: http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp

Users (a) aren't always aware that they're using an outdated browser and (b) will therefore simply blame your site rather than their browser. Unless you tell them explicitly their browser is at fault, they will not know.

My rule of thumb is that if an earthquake (or power outage ;-) occurs at the same time the user presses a button on your software, that it was your fault.

Many users simply don't really understand the different roles of the components of their computer -- and when one goes wrong, the one they meant to be using was clearly the culprit.

Sadly, the now famous power outage story I linked to isn't really that far from what I've actually seen in the real world. To some users, the computer will always be a completely unknowable device which operates on magic. I can absolutely see a lot of users not understanding what is meant by an out of date browser or how to fix it.

Cheers

myths

http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp

the fraud and theft rate of getting unauthorized access to someone's bank account is lower than in the US. So, how would someone use it to get money?

But you already answered your question: the rate of unauthorized accesses to someone's bank accounts in the USA is higher than elsewhere.

So, how would someone use it to get money? You set up a password that you never, ever share or write down. and you do your banking with that password.

I guess you never read articles about phishers, keylogging, social engineering, or just plain old fake ATMs.

And that's more secure than the tons of holes in the US banking system where all you need is someone's SSN, DOB and account number and there's pretty much nothing you can't do with it.

I don't know what banks in your country require, but in the USA you need to have something (your bank card) and to know something (your PIN) if you want to get any money from an ATM or in person. If the sum is above trivial you will be asked for a photo ID. I don't know what SSN and DOB have to do with it, I don't think I was ever asked for those - they are worthless as authenticators. And the "account number" - wasn't that you who complained that even knowing those you couldn't transfer the money? What stopped you, with so many "holes" and with the transfer being completely legal? I guess the "holes" aren't holes, after all.

And based off the fact that you say you'd disable electronic access to your accounts indicates that you have an irrational fear of technology.

There are two processes involved. First, just like when you configure firewalls, you disable everything and then individually enable what you really need. I can't imagine that I will ever want to send money electronically to another client of my bank. That's reason #1 why it will be disabled.

But there is another reason too. Not all technology is beneficial, personally or socially. This is open to debate, of course, since there are many technologies out there. Even the nuclear fusion reaction produced one bad outcome (the bomb) and one good outcome (nuclear power.) Of course, banking is nowhere as serious, but still I don't see a need to make spending my money even easier than it is now. I guess I'm not one of those spending-big consumers that every vendor loves to have; I certainly wouldn't want to have a payment token implanted into my arm or carried in my phone. If you want my money *right now* you will get nothing.

Is it just to pass lies about the banking system and bitch about politics?

Well, that was really uncalled for.

Pepsi supports Israeli fascism while depleting your precious bodily fluids. And Snapple kills Afro-Americans seven different ways. http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/snapple.asp

Oh; and I really worry about decisions made before active MRI and other techniques came about, I think some horrible things have happened.

There's no "think" about it, it's a dead cert:

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/buried.asp

Lucy beat these guys to it!

Consulting the Oracle of Urban Mythology should be a required step before even mentioning frogs in casual conversation.

Actually, Snopes disproved that myth. http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.asp

I really wish they'd crack down on these blatant infringers before getting all sanctimonious about copyright. Don't they know better than to publicly perform a copyrighted song?

Arthur Conan Doyle never wrote "Elementary, my dear Watson". Perhaps it derives from some derived work, and any extant copyright claim to the phrase rests in the hands of some other estate.

Offtopic.

Really?

Don't you love mods that have no fricking clue about historical myths?

Actually, no, no you can't.

I know, I heard it with a frog, hound etc, so I went to Google it to get it 'right' and snopes of all places had it as a turtle. Interesting story none the less. I assume the scorpion could sting the turtle in the head.

first that showed up