Slashdot Mirror

Those Aussies are ruthless! They even wired kangaroos with explosives... come hopping in the camp and knock out ten guys! You know, the Americans already knew about this Aussie tactic.

Kinda off-topic, and whilst the saying is a good one, if you put frogs in cold water and slowly heat, they will jump out before they boil.

Frog boiling according to Victor H. Hutchison the George Lynn Cross Research Professor Emeritus of Zoology.

This is actually a source near Suisse/France. That it spell naive backward is absolute random incident.
sorry this is in french but about evian les bains.

and a SNOPES article on Evian/Naive

Hardly "inventing" it.

Al Gore never said he "invented" the Internet. You did. As so does every right-wing hack who brings it up.

Finally someone else has stepped up to be the fool of the year as the one who "invented the internet".

(Unlike Mundie, Gore actually never claimed he did. Only that he fueled money into it to get it on track)

Sorry, hoax. http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.asp

Snopes says it isn't true, http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.asp, but it should be!

Funny, yes, but false.

You've been reading Betty Martini, haven't you? Reading Betty's work is like reading Noam Chomsky's politics: the level of delusion is so consistent that people take it seriously, and start citing other people as cites when you can trace the cite back to the same deluded source.

For evidence of the delusional nature of Betty's claims, check out http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp .

Sad to hear of people getting screwed like this. It kinda reminds me of Kaycee Nicole issue that cropped up years ago. I actually got to speak with some of the persons that got suckered in to the hoax, and it was crushing both when KC 'died' and when, a week later, they find out they had been giving into a lie for two years.

Snopes Article on the same subject.

Not sure if you were trying to be ironic, but it is a commonly held myth from somewhere that we only use "insert X percent" of our brains.

Once an adult, you are utilizing 100% of your brain in one way or another. It's allocation that makes the difference.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

Yeah, uh... about that horse's ass.

Nice story, pity it's total BS.

I don't have to argue with every half-baked theory on the internet. If you read the comments to this article, they're full of people shooting down the idea you espoused.
a) It's not my argument to make. Do you have any proof for your outrageous claim? As in a court case. Certifying copies is what a notary public is for. I'm skeptical the judge would give much weight to your proof.
b) I've heard at least two lawyers laugh at the idea you just described. It probably depends on jurisdiction, you really should mention what country's law you're arguing from.
c) This paricular website:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp
seems to strongly disagree with you. I'm not going to find any more, you find some support for your claim.
d) Moral rights really only apply if you assign your copyright.
Your entire "argument" is unsubstantiated assertions. I'm warning people to talk to a lawyer before they rely on them.

Poor man's copyright is not recognized in the U.S. It's too easily faked, among other things.

Not done.
http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp

This solution is way too easy to fraud. As a simple example:

Have notary notarize several basically blank pages (fill in only as much as you need to convince a notary to mark it).
Mail an unsealed envelope to yourself.
Fill in your 'discovery' 'borrowed' from someone else on the notarized pages years later.
Stick in envelope, seal, sign over seal.

Done!

• Snopes
• Wikipedia

Please don't mod up this urban legend. There are plenty of ways to fraud this, and no one can offer a court case that actually accepted this as proof.
http://www.snopes.com/legal/postmark.asp

So, if there is a myth that a lot of people believe is true, then it will stay up there as it is not challenged. So, it still gets reputation, and therefore more credibility, making it more likely that the myth will be perpetrated.

Yep. There are lots of these. Snopes is full of these - "everybody knows it's true" but yet it's false.

Also, if someone hasn't noticed something that is wrong on an esoteric entry, it will also be given credibility, and once again be more likely to be considered to be fact.

Oh, you were talking about Wikipedia - but there to, in real life, we have the same dynamic at work. Such as, for example, the "sovereign" status of Sealand. If you look at the legal history of this claim, it's simply a case of "no court has bothered to rule against them". So it stands as a claim.

While you could add voting to the algorithm to have people vote on whether it is true, that still gets destroyed by someone who just votes because they think it's true, not because they have verified it.

Either way, it potentially gives additional credibility to something that may be very wrong.

If a bunch of people vote on it for whatever reason they prefer, then that vote stands. (at least in theory, the last two US elections are good example of how this can go wrong) There will ALWAYS be a fight to preserve truth over opinion. And one of the best examples of this is Slashdot!

How many posts modded funny do you see about the "Blue Screen of Death"? I think I've actually seen a BSOD maybe once in the last three years - XP is a far cry from Win98. How many highly ranked posters here haven't the foggiest clue how copyrights, patents, and trademarks work, or even are aware that there's a difference between them?

How many people here actually believe that if any GPL code here is found in the Windows Source code, then all of Windows must then be open-sourced, and that they would then have a legal right to demand this? (I'm probably going to get modded to -1 troll for this last question)

See what I mean?

You guys can have the flying car. I'll stick with the lawnchair tied to helium filled weather balloons.

> If that means Philips refused to license the tech to the porn industry, then it's no wonder the system failed.

It means you have been trolled, in classic AFU style.

As for "betamax porn": http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=2126

I'll bet quantum computers are listed on http://snopes.com/!

I wonder if a disclaimer to the effect that you must own a copy of said recordings to download them would hold up

Distribution is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Distribution to someone who already has a copy is still distribution, and their possession of a copy or not has no relevance on that. Nobody's contesting that illegal distribution happens when an illegal copy is made. The only two arguments have been 1) sharing does not imply that anyone actually copied it, so it doesn't implicate infringement and 2) distribution happens at the client's request, thus the client is liable not the sharer. That disclaimer would have just as much effect as the Internet Privacy Act.

Though this is a great story (and it is used to connect the chariot rots to the size of the external tanks of the space shuttle) it is unfortunately an urban legend. Sorry.

That's a myth.

Reminds me of this

Your use of Happy Birthday is a violation of copyright law. Our lawyers are en-route.

Signed,
The RIAA

Maybe you have to whittle your thumbs to make more effective use of the device, leaving no room for gaps between data transfers. With this surgery you can get your pages down to 10: http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/iphonethumb.asp

where did I put that pack of Camels?

Camels come in herds and not packs.
They are definitely fatal.

FALSE
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

these articles show the depth of his hypocrisy, how he is a man about the money not the people, how he pushes stupid projects that make no sense. this is us saying "we told you not to listen to this guy."

It's true! http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cokelore.asp No Pepsi page on Snopes. Pepsi might be the knockoff, but it is the knockoff above all others.

I prefer Coke, I do not like the diet Coke brand(s), to me they taste like Pepsi.

When did we start on the euphemism treadmill?

Probably around the time somebody complained about "master/slave" drive setups.

WHAT A CROCK! And I suppose this will also enlarge my penis. You make the claim that it's "shown to be up to 1000 times more effective". Cites, please. And don't go trotting out the supposed study from Johns Hopkins. That's an urban legend that they have been trying to kill for a while. http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cancerupdate .asp

I think Ken was right, from a business case viewpoint.

(The famous home computer quote is right also, when considered in it's context.)

We'd call it TCO now, and per-seat minis with terminals made far more sense then PCs.

DEC All-In-One and like products supplied integrated word processing, email, scheduling, file access, and other services. They did all that dedicated word processors did (then a significant competitor in the office) and much more at only slightly greater cost. It took years for similar quality products to appear on PCs, and it wasn't until the office suite wars they could integrate to any significant degree. And with centralized systems administration was a magnitude easier, an issue we still wrestle with today.

Rather it was the commitment required to purchase a mini that killed them.

A PC with the works cost $10k then, a fraction of what a mini did. It was affordable by departments out of their own budgets; indeed determined individuals could justify their purchase as office tools. It was about the same cost as a dedicated word processor, but much more versatile (plus didn't require a contract signed off on by Legal & Accounting, who'd have blocked 'em.) Thus they trickled in the back door to companies, one pioneer at a time, often into Legal or Accounting.

By contrast a mini or a word processing system was a corporate decision. Particularly a mini, which required dedicated facilities and staff. Senior (older) management was dubious of their benefit and resistant to the significant commitment required to change their business processes.

Thus PCs won out and minis died. Not on the basis of technology or value but corporate sociology.

With shorter purchasing cycles and less professional administration the resulting PC software market was far more vibrant then the mini market ever was. Products quickly rose and fell, new categories appeared almost overnight, dozens of products flourished in immature markets. Professional systems administrators, 'till then used to endless meetings and air-conditioned quarters, were appalled at the Wild West atmosphere, short-sightedness, and cumulative "overbuying" in the PC market. Some retreated to the safety of what they knew, other figured when it's raining soup to get out a bucket and embraced the new paradigm.

Could Digital have competed?

Sure. The PC market wasn't inevitable. It was still closely controlled by IBM, who weren't positioned to capitalize on the tiger they had by the tail. It was a fragmented space with numerous small incompatible competitors without the breadth & depth of Digital's offerings nor their extensive support systems. (If the IBM BIOS hadn't been successfully clean-room reverse-engineered then widely licensed the PC market would have remained severely stunted.)

However to compete DEC would have had to compete, to educate their potential customers about their advantages, and Ken Olsen & crew refused to do so. Instead they considered the superiority of their technology to be evident to anyone who did their research. And it might have been. But the market wasn't full of people and companies with committees & consultants doing comprehensive research; it was secretaries and accountants and progressive mid-level managers who wanted this new tool and were able to, again, buy PCs without too much oversight.

So Ken Olsen was, IMHO, right about the value of his products. Just disastrously wrong about the market and his need to sell to it.

(My first "real" PC was a close call between a DEC Rainbow and an IBM XT. I went with the IBM because I could also get a "Baby Blue II" card to put in it running CP/M on it's own Z80, just in case IBM DOS didn't pan out. Also the very cool IBM "Color Card" and a Hercules graphics card for mono. It was a very shu-weet machine, IBM XT serial # 384. I later became a manager at The Computer Museum, formerly The Digital Computer Museum, where I had the pleasure of meeting & chatting with Ken Olsen several times.)

Greiner's article is pretty lame. If it had a bit of background or insight, it could have been a great read. But it's just a list of companies names with a bare minimum of detail. Not even a decent analysis of why they failed. At least the Slashdot comments give some insight the CIO author was lacking.

Which brings us to DEC:

> When Ken Olsen made his famous comment in 1977, it set the tone for DEC to ensure it quickly lost relevance in the computer world. And when DEC did finally come out with PC's, they were proprietary at a time when the proprietary designs were slowly losing out to the IBM PC.

DEC's systems were a large computer surrounded by dumb terminals. They died because Olsen didn't want to know about the PC.

Now remember that 'Network PC' craze of a few years back? Larry Ellison's call for a PC that was so stripped down it was just a prettier dumb terminal. When Ken Olsen heard about the Network PC, he got excited and declared he had been vindicated. The market disagreed. Olsen was an extremely arrogant man. He knew about the PC but didn't want to know about it. He hated Unix with a vengeance, preferring his DEC's own VMS (I used both: VMS truly sucked). He had a chance to form the OSF (Open Software Foundation) to unite Unix vendors, but he was sniping and suspicious. He and IBM Chariman John Akers wouldn't even shake hands in public. Unsurprisingly Microsoft rode all over them.

He claims he was misquoted. His actions suggest otherwise: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/kenolsen.asp

HAHAHAHAHA NO.

Moron.

Is Snopes unbiased enough for you?

If so: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

The site is not biased, it is merely confirming the truth of the quotes, although I assume the original writer of the email in questions was biased. Then again, everyone has some bias, whether right, left, secular humanist, etc.

As for my other comments, when I refer to we all, I meant we as in American government. I apologize to any non-Americans, it was not meant to to allude to you, as I am pretty sure you don't get Fox news anyway, although I admit I am pretty sure Britain's government had the same belief in WMD's. As for everyone else, I don't know what you thought, or what the inspectors did or did not tell you. What I am sick of is people saying they never believed they were there before the war, when there was a prevalence of "common knowledge" (not correct, but common) that there were.

As for the below comment that it is about believing there were WMD's now, that I agree with. Everything I heard was that none were found. Anyone who thinks they were found, is misinformed. Whether they ever existed, exist, or whatever, I don't think we will ever know beyond a reasonable doubt.

• oppressed for speaking out
  
• stalking
  
• unwanted targeted marketing
  

This anecdote is frequently used to illustrate the perils of failing to do adequate preparation and research before introducing a product into the international marketplace. It's a wicked irony, then, that the people who use this example are engaging in the very thing they're decrying, because a little preparation and research would have informed them that it isn't true.

Another naming failure was with the Chevy Nova. Nova, in espaniol, means "it doesn't go". I'm sure this was just an over site by GM. But the cars didn't sell well in Latin America and other Latin countries.

This is also another case of an urban legend posing as a lesson in... something. Check Snopes, please:

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

Sorry, there is no objective evidence that HFCS or Aspartame are bad for you.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Whenever I drink or eat anything with aspartame in it, I get a massive headache. Over 75% of all FDA complaints involve aspartame. Of course, that's anecdotal evidence. However, it doesn't need to convince anyone besides me, for which purpose it works fine. You don't have to believe anything you don't want to believe.

In other words, you have no problem jumping to unwarranted conclusions just because it's an artificial sweetener.

No, no need for 'other words'. The words I used worked just fine. I do not have to explain my beliefs, especially when I put a disclaimer in the very sentence you quoted. I did not state that 'sucralose is bad for you because it's an artificial sweetner', which is what you said. I said that, in my belief, which is not yet backed up by data, it is probably bad for you. Do you have citable statistical data for every single belief you hold? Well, obviously not, because your belief about what I said is provably wrong. Oh, but it's YOUR belief, so it can be based on whatever you want. It's only the beliefs of OTHERS that must be backed by statistical data, right? (note that while I believe that to be your viewpoint, it's based solely upon what you wrote and is not backed by a clinical, double-blind test.)

If you can provide some honest, objective evidence that these things are unhealthy, then I'm sure people would come around.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHahahahahAHAhaHAhAhAhAhAhAhAHAHAHHA hahAH. Oh my God you just gave me the best laugh I've had in years. Like there's no objective evidence that it isn't the best idea in the world to coat your lungs in radioactive tar. Like there's no objective evidence that drinking to excess is a bad idea. Oh, but no one does either of those things, because they know they're unhealthy, right? You really are a funny one.

Believe it or not, people do care about what they eat, for the most part--

Really? I don't believe it. You haven't provided any statistical data for your assertion...yet again your hypocrisy manifests itself.

but most people have enough sense listen to the doctors and scientists who have studied these additives and found them to be safe.

Really? What studies found aspartame to be safe? The ones conducted by the manufacturers of aspartame or the one presided over by the head of the FDA who later went to work for the manufacturers of aspartame? The ones where humans were given aspartame in slow-dissolving caplets? The ones where the aspartame wasn't allowed to be cooked, although it's approved for baking and cooking use? Can you cite your sources, please? (of course not)

The headlines are not screaming "Aspartame shown to cause xyz syndrome." Medical researchers are not infallible, of course, but I have more reason to believe them than to believe you.

Yes, because medical researchers didn't tell us saccharine was safe. They didn't tell us fenphen was safe. They didn't tell us that the IUD was safe. They didn't tell us that trichloroethylene was safe. They didn't tell us that thalidomide was safe. Oh, wait...

The difference is that I don't actually care if you believe me. I hope that you don't. I hope that you enjoy a huge amount of aspartame every day, and that it actually is safe for you. I don't hold my beliefs because I want others to blindly follow them. If your research (er I mean "research") leads you to a conclusion, great! But don't expect me to change my beliefs simply because some random internet guy doesn't agree with them...especially when you are so obviously clueless.
I'm not saying that you're clueless because of your assertions, but because of the manner in which they were presented. Again, this belief that I hold isn't based on any clinical data. Sorry.

Aspartame is bad for you, as bad or worse than HFCS.

Sorry, there is no objective evidence that HFCS or Aspartame are bad for you.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

I believe sucralose is, too, but there isn't enough data yet.

My whole point was not that *I* want to eat HFCS but that the majority of people don't care and wouldn't even if you sat everyone down for a mandatory nation-wide training class.

A quick google search revealed this.

We only use, what, 10% of our brains anyway ---

Myth. Please don't act as if that sort of nonsense is true...

> This slide was led (again IMHO) by the Democratic leaders of the 80s & 90s, who insisted that crime and other problems were the failure of the system, the failure of the society - individuals were not to blame.

Did the Democratic party make this claim, or did self-help book authors sell what people wanted to hear and lawyers repeat, hoping to ride the wave of green?

> The outcome of this is an increase in frivolous lawsuits.

One way or another, I agree. There's far too many merit-less lawsuits, which again comes down to responsibility and ethics. I'd be ashamed to sue for massive sums I didn't earn, and should any word reach the press, be ashamed to be seen in public for fear of being known as the local lawsuit-jerk.

That said:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

> Another problem seems to be an increase in "syndromes", where people blame hastily invented, acronymic illnesses or syndromes for the problems cause by poor parenting or minor behavioral deviations. "Oh, you'll have to make special allowances for my son.

Somehow, the term "road rage" apparently made people think "I'm not being a jack-*** endangering the lives of others for little to no personal gain (maybe 5 minutes less travel), I'm just reacting normally to all the REAL jerks on the road!" You either are or are not mentally fit to drive a car. If someone cutting in front of you makes you fly into a rage, leading to, tailgating them, shooting at them, bumping their car, trying to squeeze them off the road, speeding ahead and cutting them off etc, that means that you have all the maturity of a three year old and NO BUSINESS BEHIND THE WHEEL. No matter how much the other person deserves what they get, all the others you endanger by driving wildly to "get even" did nothing to deserve the risk you put them at. If you pull in front and slam your breaks, the pile-up involves far more than them.

> People do weird things, theres no need to create a disease for every little tick. I do not mean to discount or diminish actual mental health issues like ADHD, but hey folks, life is tough, get over it.

There may be something to ADHD, but what gets CALLED ADHD is (with how often you hear about it) either natural and normal (in which case the PROPER solution is learning to live with it, to overcome it) or else looking for an excuse to give you kid medication to "calm them down" so you can get back to ignoring them instead of being a parent.

> Sony is ... They're the first, they won't be the last.

Sony is not nearly the 1st. They may be the 1st major company to buy and distribute a root-kit, but they aren't even close to the 1st major company to commit major wrong-doing. There's a reason anti-trust laws were created. The theory behind America is that intelligent people consider more than cost, they deal with businesses based on cost, trust and quality. In the early days of our country, where most (all?) anything you needed was produced locally this was great. When corporations got large enough that they could crush out local business and those running them gained personal near immunity from serious legal consequences on anything, the companies knew they had the ring through your nose and no credible threats. If you couldn't crush the competition, price-fix. You don't get all the profit, but no nasty price-wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust

This was inevitable. Many companies seek to grow. Greedy people tend to rise to the top in companies, since that's where the big profit is. (Not in being a grunt laborer) The people who best apply their personal greedy behavior to the company's interests, in an era of consmers who make no effort to be informed, lead their companies to victory. Once a company headed by the unethical

I call bullshit.

I recorded a video of my cat a while ago and posted it to YouTube. Copies of it have sprouted up far and wide, uploaded to YouTube and Google Video and all sorts of other places. It got so bad that someone started sending around a bogus e-mail with the video attached.

It's just a cat flushing the toilet, right? Why should I care?

Well, damnit, it's my cat, and all I want is credit for my own work. It's intolerable to me for others to get to take the credit, but any procedure more costly or onerous than the takedown procedure already in place would not be worth it. And the result would be that I would be disincented to create works and post them to YouTube. So much for promoting the useful arts.

I do agree that those who abuse the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA and send bogus take-down notices need to be walloped. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

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

Names, on their own, usually aren't that important. Snopes on the "Nova"