Slashdot Mirror

I like mythbusters, but sometimes they miss the point. I've had cards get scrambled by exposure to low level fields. Check out what snopes has to say. A low power magnet can affect a magstrip, espicially over time, like constantly sitting in/sliding in and out of a wallet. I doubt those anti-theft deactivation pads they tell you not to put cards on at the store are thousands of gauss. Also, i cant think that fridge magnet strength magnets would hold anything onto anything real well. I

Do I smell another visit to the DoJ?

I love the Department of Justice smell of Crisco and calico cat repellant in the morning!

(At the DoJ morning Bible Study, of course, not in Vietnam where you love the smell of napalm in the morning -- John Ashcroft, and George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and Russ Limbaugh, were all eligible to serve in Vietnam, but somehow never did.)

Remember what happened with the American car "nova" or "no go" in Spanish?

A myth, an urban legend.

To summarize the snopes entry..

First of all, you wouldn't say "no va" in spanish, you'd say "no machina", "no functiona" or "no trabaja" (doesnt work). "Don't go" is slang from ignorant english folks, it doesn't translate. Apologies for my bad spanish.

Secondly, it's like saying an english speaker wouldn't buy a dinette set under the brand name "Notable" because it says "no table". The legend insinuates that the spanish are somehow stupider than we are. (Like the myth of africans being shocked to see baby food on store shelves because they cant read and just look at the pictures and assume thats what's in the jar)

Thirdly, the punchline of the story is that Chevy changed the name to "Caribe" and sales took off. But, Volkswagon already sold a "Caribe" in Mexico - it was the Golf here. The name "Nova" was never changed in mexico.

Lastly, there's a brand of gasoline in Mexico called "Nova". It sells fine.

Basically it's just a subtly racist urban legend. "Dem wetbacks is so stupid they tink Nova means No Go!"

There are many myths about Abraham Lincoln, but he really did grow up in a one-room log cabin.

I believe there is an issue with certain types of wallets. Eelskin wallets can erase your credit cards. Perhaps this has something to do with it? Don't the RFID scanners scan for magnetism? Wait, this debunks that theory.

I can't wait to read the real explantion on Snopes

Needless to say, Richard doesn't have anything to do with hamsters.

I particularly like the following part: "Cedars-Sinai is apparently the best-staffed hospital in the world, since several hundred different doctors and nurses were reportedly on duty at the time Mr. Gere was allegedly brought in for treatment."

And the recording of a radio announcer breaking up (300 Kb, Real Audio) as he attempted to read one of the versions of the "gerbil in the anus" article as a straight news story.

Needless to say, Richard doesn't have anything to do with hamsters.

I particularly like the following part: "Cedars-Sinai is apparently the best-staffed hospital in the world, since several hundred different doctors and nurses were reportedly on duty at the time Mr. Gere was allegedly brought in for treatment."

And the recording of a radio announcer breaking up (300 Kb, Real Audio) as he attempted to read one of the versions of the "gerbil in the anus" article as a straight news story.

can be found at Snopes.

Not quite the case of corruption you paint it out to be.

Otherwise I agree with everything you said about the UnPatriot Act.

My first thought was that Jeremy Rice didn't use the U-Word, but that the reporter grabbed it as convenient journalese. (I have other issues with the reporter's use of language -- see below.) But all the news reports seem to be saying "Unpickable", which can only mean this is an actual claim.

Not another "mis-informed" individual regurgitating the "Al Gore invented the internet" myth...again, here is what really was said.

stop spreading ignorance

you're confussed, its ok, you're blinded by your agenda. There are REAL PHOTOS of John Kerry and Jane Fonda at a 1970 Anti-War Rally.

Its more likely the democratic party secretly putting out the forgery, and letting it be known as a forgery, to confuss people with the real (as in not fake) picture of john kerry and jane fonda.

"Hey did you see that picture of John Kerry and Jane Fonda?"

"NO ITS FAKE! I saw the slashdot story!"

> The rabid Fonda-haters are all on the right-wing fringe anyway.

Incorrect. Anyone even slightly familiar with the story and even vaguely patriotic probably hates Jane Fonda.

There is a real photo of Fonda and Kerry at a 1970 anti-war rally in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania (which they both spoke at).

For that matter, it could be a Kerry ally seeking to discredit the real photo linking Kerry and Fonda by distributing a fake and making it famous enough that people will simply assume that both are fake.

(Finally, in an interview in 2000, almost thirty years after the fact, Fonda admitted: "I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless.")

Do your own homework. Here's a start.

John Kerry served in Vietnam, and afterwards appeared in several protests against the war, most famously throwing (fake) war medals back over the fence of the White House. At roughly the same time, Jane Fonda was protesting by propagandizing for the North Vietnamese, using her celebrity status to help draw support the communist government there. Many of my father's generation who served in the military see her as committing traitorous acts, so this doctored photo invokes a very strong reaction by linking Fonda and Kerry.

I find it interesting that while the two never personally met, they both engaged in protesting with roughly the same intensity against the government. After learning that the photo was doctored, many uneducated voters may discount Kerry's years of protests, and might actually think he supports the military.... Should be interesting in the fall.

www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry.asp

Unless this is an attempt by a right wing organization to discredit Kerry, why waste your time? Especially when you are lying?

Lying about this?

Or did you think that was Kerry with the beard and groovy choker?

The political right in the U.S. hates her guts.

Ummm, no, more than just the political right hate her guts. Anyone ever associated with the military hates her guts. Any (informed) patriotic American probably hates her guts.

You see, she did not just "make a trip" to N. Vietnam. She ENCOURAGED them to shoot down Americans. She visited an anti-aircraft battery that was used to shoot at/down American planes. She encouraged the enemy to continue fighting, and encouraged the Americans (over the radio) to essentially "give up." She even asked to pose in videos with American POW's, and some of those POW's later testified that they were tortured if they did not want to appear in the videos with her. Like a previous poster said, if war had been officially declared, she could have been executed for treason. As it stands, most people who know all the facts consider her a traitor to this day.

This is why any photo showing Kerry at an anti-war rally with her is extremely damaging to his campaign. This is also why Jane Fonda has been trying to distance herself from him in recent interviews, because she knows she is so hated it could torpedo the Dem's campaign.

Here is some more info from Snopes.

Then most Americans are ignorant of the real reasons to hate the treasonous scum.

Before you mod this "Flamebait", go read that page and tell me whether it's reasonable to completely detest that loser and everything she stands for. John Kerry seriously needs to distance himself as far as possible.

and of course, the story of "fake" makes people think this is a fake, too: It's not.

"But could someone explain the Jane Fonda thing? What did that forged photo purport to show?"

Many people consider Jane Fonda to be a traitor.

That's why this forgery is significant: it isn't some innocent and harmless Fark-style "let's put him with Barney the Dinosaur and make a funny image." It was designed to instill hatred of the candidate by associating the two. The rationale is likely that while the fact that both protested the war might not be enough to convey a sense of guilt by association, it might make all the difference in the world by providing a photo of the two speaking together.

Real

Fake

Real

Fake

Jane Fonda is an actress who was a vocal critic of the Vietnam War. In 1972 she visited the capitol of North Vietnam. Many people branded her a traitor for visiting with the enemy of the United States while the US was still at war with them. They gave her the nickname 'Hanoi Jane' because of her actions. Some people still harbor great animosity for her for this.

Note: Her visit occurred in 1972. The real picture of her and Kerry at the same rally was taken in 1970.

Oh, wait, only one of the pictures of them together was forged, while the other has been verified.

I think it's interesting that the media is following the forged photo and completely ignoring the fact that the man claiming now to be pro-military and bragging about his service record has been proven to be one of Hanoi Jane's fellow protesters. Granted, she was not yet personally, directly responsible for killing American servicemen, but I somehow doubt her claims that she suddenly had a radical change of heart between the time they were hanging out together and when she starting partying in North Vietnam.

I saw the real photograph with Kerry in the same place as Fonda, but I kept look at the dude with the beard and saying "that looks nothing like Kerry, WTF are they talking about?"

Then I finally saw him in the distance, blurred a bit. So, big fucking deal.. It's not like he was sitting next to her holding her hand or something.

But in any case... Kucinich for President!!!

I'm not trying to flame, but what if online freedom includes child porn? Or people being murdered while being taped and then the movies played out online? If we outlaw these isn't that a "freedom of experssion" also?

Yes, it is.

Sexually abusing children or committing murder are genuine crimes, and people who do such acts need to be removed from our company for everyone's safety.

Distributing images of actual occurances of the sexual abuse of children is an intrusion of the right to privacy of the children in question, and thus a legitimate crime; but the law claims that possessing even fictional depictions of the sexual abuse of children should be punushed. That's thoughtcrime.

(And for the slow-witted: no, I have no desire to view kiddie porn. The thought turns my stomach. But so does the thought of listening to Pat Robertson.)

Similarly, possessing images of people being murdered is not a genuine crime. Should it be a crime to have a picture of the 9/11 mass murder? Or the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald? Or of the security video tapes from Columbine (as seen in Bowling for Columbine)?

(Oh, and snuff films don't exist. Warning: link is not pleasant reading.)

Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You" to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song's publisher? No. Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs, and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license...

also from here this bit about the song and copyright law:

Copyright restrictions do not apply to each time that someone sings Happy Birthday to You to a family member, friend, or co-worker. This type of use is not copyright infringement for failure to obtain the permission from the publisher. Royalties are due only for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit (as did Western Union in its singing telegrams), using it in the movies, television shows, live stage shows, or incorporating the song into musical products, such as singing birthday greeting cards or candles. [Anderson, Bruce, "Beyond Measure," Attache, January 2002]. Royalties are also due and payable in instances of public performances, which are defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of family and its social acquaintances is gathered." [U.S.C. 106 of the Copyright Act].

So for those arguing that a "cover" of the song can sung without obtaining any rights, I would have a say that a precedence has been set and it does not appear to be in favor of Apple and Chiat Day.

From the Snopes "Urban Legend" web site: "NASA never asked Paul C. Fisher to produce a pen. When the astronauts began to fly, like the Russians, they used pencils, but the leads sometimes broke and became a hazard by floating in the [capsule's] atmosphere where there was no gravity. They could float into an eye or nose or cause a short in an electrical device. In addition, both the lead and the wood of the pencil could burn rapidly in the pure oxygen atmosphere. Paul Fisher realized the astronauts needed a safer and more dependable writing instrument, so in July 1965 he developed the pressurized ball pen, with its ink enclosed in a sealed, pressurized ink cartridge. Fisher sent the first samples to Dr. Robert Gilruth, Director of the Houston Space Center. The pens were all metal except for the ink, which had a flash point above 200C. The sample Space Pens were thoroughly tested by NASA. They passed all the tests and have been used ever since on all manned space flights, American and Russian. All research and development costs were paid by Paul Fisher. No development costs have ever been charged to the government.

From the Fisher Space Pen web site: The cartridge was pressurized with nitrogen so that it didn't rely on gravity to make it work. It was dependable in freezing cold and desert heat. It could also write underwater and upside down. The trick was to have the ink flow when you wanted it to, and not to flow the rest of the time, a problem Fisher solved. Fisher's development couldn't have come at a more opportune time. The space race was on, and the astronauts involved in the Mercury and Gemini missions had been using pencils to take notes in space since standard ball points did not work in zero gravity. The Fisher cartridge did work in the weightlessness of outer space and the astronauts, beginning with the October, 1968 Apollo 7 mission began using the Fisher AG-7 Space Pen and cartridge developed in 1966.

For more information about the history of the ball point pen, go here: http://www.cosmopolis.ch/english/cosmo30/history_b allpoint_pen.htm

That is an Urban Myth - Fisher invented the space pen at no cost to the government. He sold them to NASA for $2.95 each.
The Russians used them too.

snopes.com

As mentioned above, this is a myth.. Snopes link to the real story

check out this story and pictures of a skimmer at work in brazil.

Yeah, I'd read that, too. But Snopes claims it's not true.

Yeah, but that means letting them use cookies. No thanks

I, too, prefer not to let Google set cookies. So far Google has been -- so far as I know -- a good respecter of privacy, but their insistence on recording all searches, along with the requesting IP address, gives me serious pause.

It's not that Google is evil, but that reposing that much information in any hands is a temptation to evil -- either on Google's part, or on the part of whomever ends up controlling it when and if Google goes public, or on the part of whatever government can issue subpoenas, or whatever lawyer can get subpoenas issued.

I'd feel much more comfortable if Google would purge its records of searches, or at least remove the IP addresses, but I suppose they have their reasons. I'll let you guess what those reasons might be.

Imagine Microsoft subpoenaing Google for the IP of whomever searched for "leaked Microsoft source" and then using that to allege an open source project is built on top of proprietary Microsoft code.

This is why I won't use the Google toolbar, and why for especially sensitive searches, e.g., "STD symptom" or "John Ashcroft calico cat", I go through an anonymizing proxy.

But while the easiest and permanent way to set image search SafeSearch off is through a cookie, I believe it can also be set per individual search using a check box that is sent to Google in the http GET as a parameter, bypassing cookies.

At the very least this guy can check with an urban-legends site like snopes before he passes this crap on as fact. In the early days of space, BOTH countries used pencil. But NASA was afraid of shards of lead doing damage in a zero G environment. The company that developed the pen for NASA did it AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. NASA didn't spend a dime until the prototype was proven. Then the USSR ordered them too.

Jesus, this stuff is out there if you just look for it.

False.

References for those not in the know... (1) (2)~down at the moment, try later...

You're right, you can't argue the facts at all.

You can if they're wrong.

Don't mess with Microsoft, they have the money and the power to track you down

if this is true, then why haven't I gotten my $245 from Bill yet? I forwarded that email to a zillion friends, waited two weeks, and still no check.

Interesting topic, though I would characterize Fast Company as the "Cosmo" of tech/business publications. I found some of the articles non-researched, ill-conceived and sophmoric. In one section Fast Company continues to propagate the myth that Al Gore claimed he 'invented the Internet'.

I was one of the folks who stood around scratching his head at the explosion of IPOs for "dot coms" that had no legs to stand on. Why the imposion occurred shouldn't have surprised anyone who was paying attention, but it played on many peoples' sense of greed at the expense of their common sense.

I was one of the people who was there in the early days with technology and services that were way ahead of their time. OTOH, I was one of those that didn't run out, sign up a bunch of pimply-faced MBAs for a management team and then rush to do an IPO. Today, my company is far from the largest, but we're very stable and have a solid client base. I don't have a personal helocopter, but I did get my small slice of the dot-com pie when I sold a domain I registered in 1994 for an insane amount of money. That was exciting and depressing at the same time. It wasn't what I ever imagined would be one of the big payoffs relative to what we were doing. I suspect there may have been at least a few other companies who really wanted to build an honest solid net-based business model, that were overshadowed by the parade of spineless, over-hyped dot-coms run by people who perhaps a month before were selling life insurance.

Funny (or not), but false.

Except that story is not true. NASA only paid 2.95 a pen and the company started by Paul Fisher paid for all the R&D.

Check the link for details

Please stop propagating this urban legend.

Yea, and long live the urban legends!

Yeah, without Microsoft products, Al Gore couldn't have invented the internet.

I see my mission now.. to reply to every post with this lame ass joke with information about how it is NOT TRUE. You've heard of snopes.com, the Urban Legends Reference Pages? Please read this article before posting this lie. The proper joke would be, "Al Gore says he took the initiative in creating the Internet!". While certainly a poor choice of words for Mr. Gore even in context of the interview, he did not claim to invent the Internet.

That goes for you too, moderators. This cliche is certainly not +5 Funny and you know it.