Slashdot Mirror

The idea of hiding the CO2 underground makes me uneasy. There's no guarantee that the CO2 is going to stay put. Suppose an earthquake ruptures the chamber. What then? If the CO2 comes out, it will kill anyone in the vicinity through asphyxiation.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/smother.asp

Google for "carbon dioxide lake deaths" to learn more on why this is a dangerous idea.

Claim: Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine.
Status: True.

Don't you mean, "legalized again." Cocaine was legal in the US http://november.org/stayinfo/breaking2/Armistice.h tml

And no, it was not in coca-cola.
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp

Parent is a hoax:

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

Sorry Dude,

That larry ellison speech has been proven to be a fake

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

Nice, but it's an urban legend.

Mark Twain once famously noted that the worst winter he ever spent was his summer in San Francisco.

An amusing anecdote- both NASA and the Soviet space program needed a writing instrument which could write without gravity. NASA spent a lot of money developing the 'science' of the pen, and at last developed the apex of ballpoint technology, the gel ink pen.
The Soviets just sent up pencils.

Oh, STFU with that old, tired, chain-lettered canard and read your freakin' Snopes already. Christ, some morons.

That would be akin to saying that Nazi Germany was a good step forward because the trains ran on time.

It was Mussolini that supposedly made the trains run on time.

The more you tighten your grip, Mussolini, the more time tables will slip through your fingers.

Sorry, your pen story is false according to Snopes.

You can "create" a formula about anything. It would not be too hard to look at the American presidents and presidental election loosers.

Yep it's already been done and proven wrong. :) My rule for entertainment is that formulas get stale and old really quickly. They may work for a short while but in the long term they don't hold people's attention. People aren't like computers, plugging in a formula won't work everytime. The law of diminishing returns says so. ;)

If he was going to risk hacking secret DoD files, the least he could have done is locate the whereabouts of that wicked hoverboard from Back To The Future II . . . http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/hoverbrd.htm . . . though I heard its on loan to Joe Firmage. (But Prophet Yahweh has dibbs next!)

Believe or not there are actually at least four different bases on which you could (but probably won't be able to successfully) argue for a right to privacy with regard to email communications sent from work:

(i) The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" -- but which only applies toward government action (although some pretty surprising apparently private actions can qualify as "governmental");

(ii) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which covers email, and prohibits "(1) unauthorized and intentional 'interception' of wire, oral, and electronic communications during the transmission phase, and (2) unauthorized 'accessing' of electronically stored wire or electronic communications." -- but allows exceptions for companies which provide internet service, and does not apply if the employee consents to ECPA violations;

(iii) State statutes, which obviously vary wildly from state to state. The article that I'm using as my primary source notes that " Members of state legislatures have attempted to pass bills that would strengthen the protections of workers against electronic monitoring in the workplace, but they have generally failed because of sustained and effective corporate lobbying." (*mweheheheheh*).

(iv) Common law (which also varies from state to state) which sometimes recognizes an "actionable right to privacy" -- but under different caveats in each state.

Ummm . . . so yah -- it's complicated, so much so in fact that it's an open question in various states whether or not its legal. Also -- not surprisingly -- the legality of the monitoring will often depend on the purpose of monitoring, the purpose of the communication, sometimes even the industry you're working in, etc. Good luck figuring it out -- especially if you signed a (now practically standard) agreement allowing your employer to snoop through your work emails at will.

Generally, when the law is this fuzzy, corps will do whatever is in their best interest, and count on their lawyers being better than your lawyer if you sue. They're generally right. So assume that your workplace email communications are being monitored. We are the point now that it is never a good idea to send via email something you wouldn't mind all your colleagues seeing. Use Yahoo! or Gmail and at least make it a challenge for BigBroCorp to keep tracking of your on the job dicta. Of course, sending risque stuff from your workplace email may be your chance to be famous. Hehe.

Regards,

Moiche

Believe or not there are actually at least four different bases on which you could (but probably won't be able to successfully) argue for a right to privacy with regard to email communications sent from work:

(i) The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" -- but which only applies toward government action (although some pretty surprising apparently private actions can qualify as "governmental");

(ii) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which covers email, and prohibits "(1) unauthorized and intentional 'interception' of wire, oral, and electronic communications during the transmission phase, and (2) unauthorized 'accessing' of electronically stored wire or electronic communications." -- but allows exceptions for companies which provide internet service, and does not apply if the employee consents to ECPA violations;

(iii) State statutes, which obviously vary wildly from state to state. The article that I'm using as my primary source notes that " Members of state legislatures have attempted to pass bills that would strengthen the protections of workers against electronic monitoring in the workplace, but they have generally failed because of sustained and effective corporate lobbying." (*mweheheheheh*).

(iv) Common law (which also varies from state to state) which sometimes recognizes an "actionable right to privacy" -- but under different caveats in each state.

Ummm . . . so yah -- it's complicated, so much so in fact that it's an open question in various states whether or not its legal. Also -- not surprisingly -- the legality of the monitoring will often depend on the purpose of monitoring, the purpose of the communication, sometimes even the industry you're working in, etc. Good luck figuring it out -- especially if you signed a (now practically standard) agreement allowing your employer to snoop through your work emails at will.

Generally, when the law is this fuzzy, corps will do whatever is in their best interest, and count on their lawyers being better than your lawyer if you sue. They're generally right. So assume that your workplace email communications are being monitored. We are the point now that it is never a good idea to send via email something you wouldn't mind all your colleagues seeing. Use Yahoo! or Gmail and at least make it a challenge for BigBroCorp to keep tracking of your on the job dicta. Of course, sending risque stuff from your workplace email may be your chance to be famous. Hehe.

Regards,

Moiche

Copyright should last at most 10-20 years.

I agree. I also believe that it should be renewable by the copyright owner until the owner dies, and that the copyright is not transferable to anyone else.

When you hear about the great grandchildren suing over "their" rights that their dead great grandmother's work (dead over 50 years mind you), something is wrong. I'm thinking of the recent "Gone with the wind" lawsuit.

So, can I sue the government for Social Security from my dead grandparents and great grandparents? Or their employers? Hey, you guys owe me money because my great grandfather worked for you over 50 years ago, plus pain and suffering to boot! WTF?

Now things of physical value that can be physically transfered from one individual to another is another story. If I had my great grandparent's original transcript for a work they did when they are alive, I'm entitled to sell it and deprive myself of ownership of that property, but I don't see where I have any right to rent the arrangement of words indefinitely.

I doubt many people here know who actually wrote the "Happy Birthday" song, but everyone knows it, everyone sings it at a birthday party, and yet it's still under copyright.

Yup. Some rich fuck "owns" it and gladly collects about $2 mil a year for it. Its an interesting read, find it here: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.htm.

I will say that Mickey Mouse is a little different because it is almost synonymous with the Disney corporation. I believe that it can and should be trademarked and protected, but Steam Boat Willy copies (if anyone really wants them) should be in the public domain by now. Disney can sell original film cells for $10 billion a frame, but the story and singing and whistling is done.

This whole copyright debate is basically almost like any extremist's position. Like the NRA, MADD, or any other fanatical group. Their views are absurd and rigid, and its up to their opponents to bring them down a little and we meet somewhere in the middle.

One thing that is different about copyrights, is to ask "Who is being benefitted by having these absurdly long copyrights?" Is it your average Joe Smoe that creates the copyrighted material?

Nope.

Does it benefit society in general?

Nope.

It only benefits already rich people and corporations. It does little to nothing for the creators, and it deprives your average citizen, and adds one more thing to their lives that could be a criminal act. Citizen rights as we know it are becoming less and less every day in favor of the government and corporations (basically the same thing). This will continue until people get pissed off enough and start a riot or revolution. The thing that kills me is that we average folk way outnumber these assholes, but I guess we are too poorly organized and busy taking care of ourselves to do much of anything.

This special copyright provision also applies to the song "Happy Birthday".

Not true. That's just a prefectly normal copyright which will run out eventually. In theory. Unless certain US politicians bought by Disney manage to get their way.

Peter Pan, on the other hand, is in fact already protected by copyright FOREVER, at least in the UK. But there's a good reason for this: the royalty fees go to a children's hospital.

Actually, both NASA and the Soviets used Pencils. Lead pencils, without Graphite. And Snopes is your friend: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

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

It's a good thing though, they would open up a gate to hell if they went that deep.

Will this urban legend never die? Just go here. And toss 'em a couple bucks while you're at it for the harm reduction program. You never know who you could end up helping.

Will this urban legend never die? Just go here. And toss 'em a couple bucks while you're at it for the harm reduction program. You never know who you could end up helping.

Will this urban legend never die? Just go here. And toss 'em a couple bucks while you're at it for the harm reduction program. You never know who you could end up helping.

Obviously false: SNopes

That's unfortunately not true.

And not nearly funny enough to make it as a urban legend we wish was true.

A well-loved urban legend has it that a shabbily-dressed man mistreated by an uppity clerk...

Um, Nobel Prize?
There is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics (and it has nothing to Alfred Nobel's wife).
But yes, the mathematicians might get a Nobel for "Physiology/Medicine". Cool! The only other Mathematician I know who has won a Nobel Prize is of course John Nash, for economics.

Yes, it was bad intelligence. Unless you think the liberals are in on it too:

http://snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

don't believe your prof:
http://www.snopes.com/racial/language/names.htm

i've had people tell me this one too, gotta love those friend-of-a-friend kind of deals

The actor who posed as an Indian, and claimed to be of Cree/Cherokee descent, was in reality a Sicilian. And the tears were fake.

-cp-

That's a lousy example. Didn't he fight to promote DC because he held the patent on DC current and NOT on AC current? It had nothing to do with being a bad idea, it had to do with Edison wanting to cash in on his invention.

True, but you gotta wonder about the sanity of a guy who toured the country killing dogs to show how "unsafe" AC current is. To say nothing about inventing the Electric Chair for the same purpose.

http://www.snopes.com/science/edison.htm

(I looked it up because I never did confirm that that was true, but now I've got it confirmed by snopes.)

http://graphics1.snopes.com/photos/animals/graphic s/bigcat.jpg actually, that's a freaking huge cat.

dc.write('<scr'+'ipt language="javascript" src="http://XXX');
dc.write('/w/pop.cgi?sid=XXX'+ bust+'"></scr'+'ipt>');

The Nazi's are a great one to start with if you want to read into this. They had the people scared of the Jewish terrorists, and when Hitler burned down the Reistag and blamed it on them, it game him the power to start a pre-emtive was neccessary to "protect" their homeland from people who were attacking their way of life. Sound familiar?

One of my all time favourite quotes:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Just out of curiosity glesga_kiss, where are you from?

Glasgow, Scotland. Surprisingly.... ;-)

... started earlier than 1924 for their list. Had they started the list at 1912, they could have included the original (silent version of) The Poseidon Adventure. Not only is that an exceedingly early movie, but it is the only movie about a sinking ocean liner actually SHOWN on a sinking ocean liner!

I agree.

On a related note, we should start a petition to keep the topless woman frame in The Rescuers.

We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome.

Would be hard for me to find another link, so few talk about it. Will see what I can do. However, I challenge you to find as well a reasoned argument arguing that there will be a draft that addresses those points it brings up. Simply saying that the army is in trouble does not cut it. Here is one more and This other one appears to be from a decidedly left leaning site Here is a third

as for: As for increasing the size of the army, well, the only reason it hasn't happened is because the costs have been pushed down onto individual states by the use of the guard.

Those in the national guard, when pulled into active duty, are on the armys pay roll, not the states. Try again for a reason for not increasing the size of the army. The Congress really does have the controll on the upper limit.

Yeah, my dad too joined up to avoid being drafted and going to Vietnam. In his case he joined the Navy and managed to stay out of their. I agree with you for the rest.

3) You can make the 'product' you sell either generic enough to not be noticed ("Food Merchant", "Gift Wrap Company"), especially during the Holiday Season, or embarassing enough that people think twice about contesting it ("Anal massage", "Kiddie Porn co.").

That last bit is a classic scam-

http://www.snopes.com/risque/porn/porntape.htm

This is like that russian pencil, Million dollar US space pen email I get all the time.

You mean, untrue?

BTW, I think it's exceedingly ironic that someone criticising someone's grasp of mathematics on the basis of an accusation that they're mentally a little off-the-wall should have the Slashdot nick "A Beautiful Mind"...

nice story but its not true

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

Not forgetting this guy, who accidently injures himself at a school talk.

Check with snopes.com for more info.

If they want to test their balloons with a live person, maybe they can send this guy; I am sure for a few beers he would happily go up.

So I guess people with mental instability should not be able to have children either? Where does that slope begin, and, or stop? http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/babysit.htm

thetruth.com is in fact not.

Have you tried it? The tooth I tried it on was horribly pucked after 16 hours in some cheap supermarket cola. Hardly fully dissolved but certainly seriously damaged.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Please see http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/tooth.asp

To further debunk my silly statement, take a look at this Snopes listing. Might as well be complete.

I probably shouldn't have stepped into the issue of correlations with IQ. It seems to correlate very well with test taking, but not so well with factors such as happiness or income. That's my vague recollection when studying for my masters in biology education, anyway. I haven't kept up on the research lately.

For an amusing way to find your IQ based off your SAT score, take a look over here. Since mine is over 140, the intelligent thing to do would clearly be to mod me up.

Surely you heard the story about the Apple employee who installed Mac OS X Server on an iPod to test it and burned up his iPod hard drive over a weekend?

Yeah, and I've also heard the story of the guy who strapped a JATO to his car and smashed into a mountain.