Slashdot Mirror

If you're working in a zoo you don't want to be the one who has to brush the teeth of the lion.

True, but you don't want to be the one who has to wank off the orang-utan either.

Come to think about it, in light of MySQL's recent partnership with SCO this may not be a bad analogy after all...

Er ... you are joking, right? I can't quite tell: American irony is a bit too subtle for me sometimes. For the record, velcro was invented in the 1940s in Switzerland, space pens were offered to NASA by Fisher out of the blue, without any commission or R&D on NASA's part ... but I've never heard of Tang. What is it?

John Denver was not a sniper in Vietnam. What kind of crack are you smoking???

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/denver.htm

why does the picture in that Snopes article come up as "mr yuck"?

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/graphics/burs t.jpg

it must not like my browser user agent string?

Let me put this as simply as possible. The Guardian's article isn't worth the fish-wrapper it's printed on. The Guardian itself has all the journalistic integrity of the Weekly World News and the Enquirer put together, and that's on a GOOD day. I don't exactly put a lot of faith in the History Channel either.

You see, I've worked with dolphins at a couple of different parks, and I've done enough book-learning about them to last a lifetime. As if that's not enough, I've been to practically every oceanarium in the States, several foreign ones, and asked detailed questions of a hundred or so trainers and veterinarians over the last couple of decades to help further my knowledge of the critters.

To top off all the above, I have a friend who was a senior animal trainer for the Navy's Marine Mammal Program for nearly 20 years. We've known each other longer than that, so I trust his word a lot more than I trust that of some crank newspaper and its "reliable" source.

More to the point, I asked him once about the very allegations that papers like the Guardian have been making, on and off, for the last couple of decades. I knew that I'd get a straight answer out of him.

I did, and it was pretty much what I expected. Dart-toting or weapon-equipped dolphins are little more than the stuff of (as others have pointed out) B-grade movies. Though the specifics of what he did in the program are classified, he was able to tell me that dolphins and sea lions are used for practice-munitions recovery, search-and-rescue, and similar such missions.

No lasers, no dart guns (toxic or otherwise), no bombs, no robotic arms with nasty-looking grabbers, not even a scary sign. Sorry, folks.

Is it technically possible to train dolphins to do as the Guardian article described? Sure it is. They're smart, playful, generally friendly, and very trainable. Working with them is like working with rowdy third-graders. However, the difficulty of telling friend from foe with 100% reliability (something the military would demand in any such situation) would present a pretty substantial obstacle.

I would add that the weapon-toting dolphin myths are a favorite of animal-rights extremist groups, and are periodically toted out just to try and make headlines. Similar myths about armed dolphins in Camh Ranh Bay, Vietnam, emerged in the 70's (Google has nothing on this, BTW, as it happened long before the Internet was a driving force in the public eye. Check your local library).

I may not have dug deep enough, but I've not seen anyone post this link to snopes.com as yet. They've got a write-up on this myth (and plenty of others).

The only other thing I will add: Show me a live dolphin, equipped with a dart gun strapped to their body, and I will cheerfully STFU.

Keep the peace(es).

It's BS.

http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/dellbug.as p

In other news, man unearths fossilized remnants of giant man-eating ants in his backyard and sends it in to the Smithsonian Institute with the proposed taxonomy of "procreatium spiff-arino"

Is it just me or is Neiman Marcus only famous for the cookie recipe urban myth that has been doing the rounds in various forms since the beginning of time? OK, so I'm from Sydney, Australia, but I've never heard of the company in any other context before this story.

>I mean look at the kids song "Ring a round the Rosey", it's about the black plague.
No it isn't.

Prior art.

Really? On a board as cynical and crass as this one? Goldfinger? As a reference for skin aspyxiation? I think NOT Sir!

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mrgorsky.htm

Status? False.

One of PJs sisters could probably give you a good rundown (the ones that are not covering the implosion of a certain company right now). But if you Google ||copyright "happy birthday" || the second link is http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp so yes you could get sued (by ASCAP ) if you sing "Happy Birthday" in public

Just to do my bit at dispelling myths, no, he won't. He'll jump out when the water reaches a threshold of tolerance/discomfort.

• http://www.uga.edu/srel/ecoview11-18-02.htm
• http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.htm

I also can't imagine that any of the clicks the advertisers get are legit. It's probably mostly accidental clicks as people are navigating around.

Of course, the best thing would be to encourage people to make their sites a little more user-friendly with more than a few words of text on each page. But barring that, some form of ad blocker that finds and kills these things would be a good idea. Maybe someone can write one for Firefox and Internet Explorer?

Yeah, but Microsoft was already convicted, got less than a slap on the wrist, and went on it's way without changing anything.

When you have a war chest large enough to fund the Iraq war for a year ALL ON YOUR OWN, the laws don't apply.

"Whoever has the gold makes the rules."

Bill Gates would have to go on national television, kill the president and eat a baby to go to jail, and even then some lawyer would use the Twinkie Defense or a "Stress from battling Linux made him do it" to get is charges reduced to manslaughter.

Of course, if he used the latter defense, Linux would then be deionized as evil, and driving people to kill, which would work great for Microsoft.

The entire Houston area was all out of plywood by Monday night, according to a friend of mine there.
Ah, plywood, truly an effective measure against hurricanes.

or "Yet Another Urban Legend" as you can check out here

Front desk empolyee with access to the system, sure.

I'm thinking about the cleaning guy. Maybe he doesn't steal the info and take it home himself, but someone approaches him and offers to give him $100 for as many cards as he can take out of there. He starts picking them out of the trash, grabbing a few here and there from behind the front desk (printing stuff out of the computer would look suspicious, grabbing a handful while emptying the trash goes unnoticed).

I agree, not very likely, but possible. Why do they need this info on the card in the first place?

According to snopes, they don't

http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/hotelkey.asp

In many crime-related warnings, the issue is whether the activity warned against is a common occurrence, or whether it's something that is possible but not widespread. Every hotel or hotel chain contacted by those who have reported this story has affirmed that personal information is not encoded on their keycards, and even the one chain specifically mentioned in the warning (Doubletree) said they had corrected the issue:

        Officials at Park Place Entertainment, Mandalay Bay Resorts, Harrah's Entertainment and MGM Mirage all said no credit card information is embedded in their cards.

        "At Caesars Palace, the key cards are keepsakes," said Michael Coldwell from Park Place Entertainment. Photos of Caesars Palace in 1967 and of motorcycle daredevil Evel Knievel are featured on some. "We encourage our guests to take the card."

        But no credit card information is on those cards, he insisted. The cards contain the information to unlock the room but not even the name of the customer. "If someone loses a key card at a Park Place property, your identity wouldn't be known," Coldwell said.

        Harrah's Entertainment's David Strow made the same assurance.

        Alan Feldman of MGM Mirage said the key contains a room number and "the equivalent of a yes or no command" to identify whether the guest can charge food to the room. If customers decide to keep their keys for safety reasons, he said that won't be a problem.

        Janet Pope, spokeswoman for the Pasadena Police Department, said Doubletree had put credit card information on their cards in the past.

        "We've been assured by Doubletree they realized the glitch, and they no longer capture that information," she said.

An internet myth: Snopes

This is a hoax, great job doing research you your stories, see here: http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/hotelkey.asp

They passed this around work last week, can't believe ppl are buying this:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/hotelkey.asp

Thanks you made me laugh with this article.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/hotelkey.asp

The key cards at hotels don't hold anything but the room number and number of nights it needs to work.

Hay since I can check out in the mornings using the television does that mean the TV holds all my CC info too?

Read up and use some common sense before posting an article. kthx bye.

Here's the link: http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/hotelkey.asp

This looks like a hoax accroding to snopes: http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/hotelkey.asp

I have to admit, I'm a little suspicious. I've heard this story before and it was labeled false. Add to the situation that the author "declined to name specific hotels" and it only adds to my doubts. Why not name names???

http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/hotelkey.asp Who is right?

Sadly, I believe the Uncyclopedia could quickly turn into some kind of meta-statement on itself, with every urban legend having "supporters" and detractors. I mean, if I turn to it for real information about bullshit, then aren't they obligated to obfuscate the truth?

Sorry, Snopes once again comes through with the truth.

But don't you mean" Ring around the rosies, Pocket full of posies, Ashes,Ashes, we all fall down!
http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.htm

The animal rights fascists are humor-impaired, and they have access to explosives. Not a good combination.

I reference the font o' all knowledge, snopes.com:

http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/bonsai.asp

Woo-Hoo! Finally maybe all those emails I forwarded in 2002 will come to fruition!

But it is in fact possible to identify music without listening to it.

Don't knock Walt Disney. The man was a genius,

As qwbiz already indicated: it's easier to accept any number than screen some out. Note that they accept business numbers too, but there is no law against telemarketing to a business number, so you can't complain about that and get any enforcement as you can with a residential line.

It is illegal to make auto-dialed calls to any phone for which the user may be charged for airtime. And any telemarketing company with people punching the tone buttons isn't calling enough to matter. I honestly don't believe any manual-dialing telemarketing firms still exist -- do you know of any?

At any rate -- I didn't say that registering your cellphone on the do not call list will do harm. But you did say "Just a heads up, soon it will not be illegal for them to call cell phones unless they are registered on the do not call list. I would suggest that everyone in the US register their cell phones on http://www.donotcall.gov/" which implies that the law is changing (whatever is "illegal" now, "soon . . . will not be.") Yet you provided no evidence to back this up.

Then you even admitted that was pure speculation based the creation of a "411 wireless directory that will be implemented in 2006" which, is not anything like a certainty. Got any links to back even that claim up? No? Try this one then and quit with the FUD.

And now, despite being called on two unfounded claims stated as facts, you're still arguing. Weird, that.

Proof that you're even stupider than you appear:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/recreate.asp

Actually, he never said that, though the GOP managed to convince many people that he did.

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

George Bush had been trying to get the local government to declare a need for federal assistance.

You might want to check Snopes before you try to repeat urban legends as fact, lest we think you're a part of the current administration (who all seem to be so media illiterate that they probably can't spell snopes let alone look up to see if their information is accurate before spreading it).

Black Panther
Ah, a hero named after a hyper-racist group. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Are you posting this from the 1950's? Did someone invent timetravel:// and not tell me? Please, that argument isn't even worth responding to.

No, but there are still racists and similar idiots. in our society. Someone will complain about having a movie called Black Panther, the ACLU will get involved on who-knows-which side (the free-speechers or the minorities, flip a coin), the FCC will censor it, the White House will refuse to make a comment, the fundies will say something, the NAACP will be kinda embarrassed, David Duke will issue a statement, Howard Stern will announce Black Panther Day and get into trouble, and Osama will use the whole incident in his next propaganda tape.

It doesn't matter that the Black Panthers are gone. You just can't touch some things.

It's like the story of the university that had a problem with a "picnic" because some black guy heard an urban legend that the word comes from white plantation owners "pick"ing a "nig"ger to lynch for amusement, while they were eating. Even after proving the urban legend false, the university ran into trouble and renamed it an "outing." Whereupon the local gays took offense with that name (who knows if they did it honestly or as a joke) and the university had to leave the event unnamed.

Of course "picnic" has nothing to do with lynchings, and "outing" has nothing to do with the closet. But the general populace is statistically dumber than Slashdot (which is really scary when you think about it).

Oh, and one minor point, you're responsible for your own travel arrangemnts to and from the interview.

Alright - half done. I've got 900 empty jars of Burma-Shave. Who's got a return plan?

http://www.snopes.com/business/market/mars.asp

Not necessarily.

True, the web provide a much more fertile ground for rumours, gossip and flash-mobs of all kinds, but this is only a side-effect - the internet it primarily good for propagating memes.

All memes are spread more easily via the web than ever before, which does mean we get more rumours and gossip-presented-as-fact (bad). However, it also means we get more news, grass-roots activism, whistle-blowers and whack-a-mole style propagation of information certain entities (corporations, governments, etc) would rather keep under wraps (very, very, very good).

The problem is many people are still too credulous and inexperienced with this sudden explosion of information they encounter, and haven't developed defence mechanisms yet. This can be easily demonstrated when people first get access - initially they're clueless, naive and obey anything that looks like an instruction ("Click here to stop spyware! Warning: New Virus melts your hard-drive and explodes your toes - forward to everyone you know! Stop $$$pam fast!"). After a few weeks (or family-members beating them about the head and neck) they learn to be more discriminating - they don't forward hoax virus alerts, don't buy stuff from spam, and don't click on irritating advert images that look like Windows dialog boxes.

In the same way "bad" mechanisms have developed to take advantage of this new meme-carrying capacity (spammers, virus hoaxes, etc), we're also starting to see society-level defences and counter-memes against them evolving too - snopes.com, spam/popup filters, the idea you should never buy anything from spam, etc.

The population's information-landscape has changed beyond recognition in (for most of them) less than decade, and it's taking time for them to catch up, that's all.

Of course, along with this incredible boon of information and opportunity there's the concomitant risk - people only reading things which confirm their existing opinions and prejudices. This ultimately leads to groups with different perceptions of reality - "Iraq is nearly over and Bush is the saviour of the US" vs "Bush has fucked the country and Iraq is worse than Vietnam", for example. Communication becomes very difficult between both groups since there's a smaller and smaller amount of common understanding between them, and without some shared values to start from agreement on anything is highly unlikely.

We're starting to see the effects of this with the ongoing culture war (don't flame me, I didn't coin the term) in the US - it's all too easy for people to only read left-wing blogs, or to watch Fox news and believe everything, simply because it makes them feel better than being exposed to other, outside viewpoints.

However, this is a choice for the individual - do you seek out and test alternative viewpoints, thereby testing your own, or do you only stick with sources that agree with you, sinking into intellectual masturbation?

The technology's just there - it's up to us how we use it.

Snopes to the rescue again!

In particular:

Whether this photograph truly represents a lost opportunity to have evacuated a substantial number of New Orleans residents ahead of Hurricane Katrina is difficult to assess. Such a claim presumes an availability of resources (e.g., experienced drivers, fuel) and workable logistics (e.g., sufficient means of notifying and getting residents to departure points, sufficiently clear roads for multiple trips out of town and back) that may or may not have been present. (There's no guarantee that all the buses shown in this picture were even in working condition.) And, given the particular geography of New Orleans, any such evacuation would have had to have begun well in advance of Hurricane Katrina to avoid exposing residents to the potential danger of being stuck in buses on traffic-clogged roads in the path of an approaching hurricane. Moreover, any type of evacuation effort would have incurred a substantial outlay of funds from local and/or state governments -- while everyone agrees with the advantage of hindsight that would have been money well spent, many taxpayers might not have been left feeling so enthusiastic about footing the bill for an unnecessary evacuation had Hurricane Katrina not proved so damaging.

# Lot's of other sites use it, so it must be good.

Lot's of Lemmings are jumping off cliffs, do you want to be a Lemming?

Lemming suicide is fiction

Have read my follow up to my mis-post which was posted 3 HOURS before you took me to task for not reading before I post.

Mark L. used to work at MS, now he works at Google. Google and MS aren't getting along right now. That's plenty of reason. And I don't know if you've encountered it, but sometimes people just like to tell stories because it's fun. See Douglas Adams telling the stolen biscuits story, claming it happened to him. http://www.snopes.com/crime/safety/cookies.asp

Besides, you don't know this guy. Maybe MS didn't appreciate him. And surely Google appreciates him more (in dollars at least), it's a pretty long leap to take this man's word.

Anyway, you do also realize that Ballmer said that the story was overamped, not just a flat-out lie. People are not video cameras. Their recollections are affected by their feelings. It's very possible that both people recall the same situation differently and that the actual incident wasn't the same as either of them say.

People will believe what they want to believe, I've learned that in my journey through life. I just thought I'd put forth an opposing viewpoint, how a person with different predispositions might see things being differently.

I see that he has remembered the "We will bury you" line without having remembered the fate of the utterer which he is likely to emulate in some near future.

Just to really really move the part about Beatles from this discussion other than a generic example. Michael Jackson bought the publishing rights for 159 to 251 (I don't know the details) of the Beatles songs. So you're not actually giving Paul McCartney money when you buy a cdversion of the white album or playing revolution 1 on your radio channel, you're giving the money to our famous childlover.

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm

Snopes gave me some better info, appearantly Lennon-McCartney still recieves 50% of the royalties and Sony recieves 50% of the rest, so 25% goes to Michael.

No, they wrote: "Good Morning to All" which has the same notes as Happy Birthday. Nobody know who wrote the words to "Happy Birthday". The sisters were given the rights to "Happy Birthday" 10 years after if first appeared because it was musically the same as "Good Morning to All".

I'm an author too, I write software. I'm an intellectual rights advocate as well. I advocate considerably shorter copyright terms and an entire restructuring of the patent system. Copyright is completely broken by the existence of copyright terms lasting for life + 75/95 years. Copyright should last a maximum of 28 years. Given the extremely efficient means of distribution and production that we have today as opposed to 200 years ago, I would even support shorter terms. Special interests and politicians like Sonny Bono have stolen what rightfully belongs in the public domain. In doing so, they have created an environment where the people at large see no reason to respect the system. Because the system is so imbalanced, people feel no shame infringing on an author's copyright. Who here would refuse to sing "Happy Birthday" to their child in public on grounds of infringing Time Warner's intellectual property?

Additionally, they've created an environment where innovation is no longer possible. An author cannot build on the work of others because once written, the work is monopolized perpetually. Due to the system we have now, innovation is dragging to a halt. The systems that made this country mighty are now killing it. Look at how horribly broken the patent system has become. Numerous 'businesses' exist solely to patent everything thinkable and sue anyone who dares to create. Empty shell companies do nothing but collect 'Intellectual Property' and sue others who attempt to make an idea into reality.

The fundamental reason for copyright, patents and the whole morass of 'intellectual property' is to encourage innovation and progress, not to impede it. The only way to restore intellectual rights is to restore balance to the system. Even if they weren't suing grandmothers and children, I'd feel no pity for the RIAA. They and their lobbyists have only brought this upon themselves. Massive and flagrant infringement is the symptom, not the disease.

Yes, did you check your link with Snopes.com? A simple search yields:

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.h tm

Check here