Slashdot Mirror


Anthrax To Kill Snail Mail

omnirealm writes "Steven Levy over at NBC expressed his opinion that the new anthrax thread in our snail-mail is going to be a major catalyst to a general switch to e-mail as the primary means of written communication."

522 comments

  1. er... no... by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought the 34-cent stamp took care of that pretty well.

    I'm not exactly afraid of getting Anthrax in the mail.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:er... no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not exactly afraid of getting Anthrax in the mail.

      Right. Especially of getting an "anthrax to kill snail" mail. I'm not a snail.

    2. Re:er... no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      wow, a mail virus. They should know better than to open mail that has an executable.

    3. Re:er... no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same rules applied in opening unsolicited junk mail - don't accept/open packages from unknown senders. This got to put a dent on the junk snail
      mail senders.

      May be now we can get rid of those cheap a** hole stuffing ads through my door.

    4. Re:er... no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, that was fucking hilarious.

    5. Re:er... no... by AssFace · · Score: 1

      well, technically it is bacteria. and the ones they are using are wrapped in a spore casing for protection.

      a virus would be much smaller.

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  2. Bloody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Formula 1

  3. steven levy is full of shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    nuff zed.

  4. What about representatives by joshtimmons · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At least that would mean that our representatives in government might start actually reading email.

    1. Re:What about representatives by spudnic · · Score: 2

      ...or just have a lot more free time on their hands!

      --
      load "linux",8,1
    2. Re:What about representatives by Diomedes01 · · Score: 1

      Actually, my Senator replied to me via e-mail regarding a letter wrote regarding the DMCA and Dmitry Sklyarov; I actually submitted his response as a story earlier today, but it was rejected... I thought it was pretty interesting.

      --
      "To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
    3. Re:What about representatives by xmedar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, they have assistants that open their mail for them, OTOH what with the economy downturn, if it continues there would be a healthy market for assistants to open your mail, and that would negate the layoffs, you might even reach full employment in the US. If it was me, I'd be more enclined to hit the distribution centres for major companies, imagine if you infected even one days supply of McDonalds buns with anthrax, or if you want to hit the "intellectual elite" just spread it over books in Amazons US warehouse operations. The fact is who ever is sending it one letter at a time obviously doesnt have enough brain cells to figure out how to use the existing distribution mechanisms of society to do the job.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    4. Re:What about representatives by xmedar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On second thoughts someone could infect a factory where air conditioner filters are made, that would be even more effective at killing the general population and would be very hard to detect and rectify.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    5. Re:What about representatives by dj_flux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact is who ever is sending it one letter at a time obviously doesn't have enough brain cells to figure out how to use the existing distribution mechanisms of society to do the job.

      Actually, the goal of terrorism is to get draw attention to the cause that the terrorists support, not kill large numbers of people. What better way to get massive media coverage than sending bio weapons to high profile media centers? They could send them to government officials, or even you or I, but the gov't. would most likely sweep that right under the rug to avoid mass hysteria. Hit the media themselves, and you're guaranteed to get a huge media response. It's the same chillingly efficient and minimalist logic behind the WTC attacks. Low tech, low investment, high concept - virtually impossible to detect before it's too late.

    6. Re:What about representatives by cloudmaster · · Score: 2

      Bah, I just changed my A/C filter for the first time in over a year, and it looks like it needed changed before I moved in. That Anthrax would belong dead before I got it.

      I still wish someone would send me a copy of Anthrax's "Attack of the Killer B's", though, or perhaps "Return of the Killer A's", as I don't yet have those two albums... (yes, "Keep it in the Family" keeps running through my head whenever a new Anthrax infection shows up).

    7. Re:What about representatives by Tassach · · Score: 2
      Actually, the goal of terrorism is to get draw attention to the cause that the terrorists support, not kill large numbers of people.

      Actually, (IIRC) according to traditional (Marxist) doctrine, the primary goal of terrorism is to undermine the public's faith in (and support of) the target government, thereby paving the way for revolution. The desired outcome of a terrorist act is to force the target government to pass ill-considered, repressive laws.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    8. Re:What about representatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Actually, 'Antisocial' would seem much more appropriate...

  5. you're more likely to die by mj6798 · · Score: 5, Informative

    from an infected paper cut. Pardon me while I'm not worried. And until E-mail gets the same legal standing as snail mail (complete with legally recognized notarization, authentication, and proof of delivery) we can't replace snail mail.

    1. Re:you're more likely to die by Tooky · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Besides, the digital divide really is too big! Even within the Western World, let alone when you consider international communication! I'm sure there'd be some pretty pissed off people if they couldn't get a letter/postcard from their friends/family in some of the less priveleged parts of the world, where the postal service is slow but the only real means of communication.

      Personally, I still use real letters for the personal touch, and I love to recieve a really nice letter from someone I don't see very often. There's jst something special about a letter, its something people take time over and put a bit of effort into. Emails are just too easy, people reel them off all the time!

    2. Re:you're more likely to die by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, that is exactly the danger from cutanious (sp?) anthrax-- the infected paper-cut.

      I have argued that disasterous bioterrorism is truly prohibitive. This current attack is not very effective at causing large numbers of deaths BUT it is bisible and makes people very nervous. If they wanted to kill people, explosives would be much better weapons, but that is not their goal. Instead it is to intimidate many people and make them FEAR death. And to this end, this little stunt may be very infected indeed. This is why lovebug, et. al. have not caused people to switch from Outlook, but this scare might impact the USPS-- the fear is not purportionate to the risk (I still consider using Outlook to be a bigger risk than snail mail).

      But although email is already my primary means of written communication, there are some times when it is not as good as an old-fassioned letter. So I am not terribly concerned except to consider snailmail to be as dangerious as email...

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:you're more likely to die by cwhicks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. This is the stupidest premise I've heard in a while. First off, only the people who send mail can switch to email, and why would someone sending antrax want to switch? Secondly, how would switching help unless companies say they will only accept email, and no more snail mail. That sounds like a business ending decision. There is a large amount of stuff sent between businesses that is much more conveniently done through snail mail. Every business is going to buy scanners, have everyone get their electronic signature, purchase and instruct everyone in encryption, etc? All this because four, count em, four companies have received antrax email? How many companies have received mail bombs before this? And they still use mail? Wow!
      My last question is why was this article posted to begin with?

      --
      - I like pudding.
    4. Re:you're more likely to die by spudnic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not only that, but are people going to stop using UPS and FedEx also? Is their some law stating that you can only send antrax via the "official" carrier (ie, USPS)?

      --
      load "linux",8,1
    5. Re:you're more likely to die by Raunchola · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hi! How are you? I send you this anthrax in order to have your advice.

      See you later. Thanks.

      --

      --
      The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
    6. Re:you're more likely to die by NMerriam · · Score: 1

      LOL

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    7. Re:you're more likely to die by newbiescum · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the chances of UPS and FedEx usage dying off are far more remote, even though I also think that the USPS/snail mail won't really have a decline in shipments either. UPS and FedEx mainly transport items that cannot be sent down a data stream (e.g. computer parts), and even those that could be sent down via file transfers (e.g. DVD, CD, books/text), it is much too inconvienent (4.8 GB/DVD even on a cable modem could take at least a day on a good connection), not to mention generally illegal.

      Sure, I bet many people will be more cautious of opening up random unexpected packages that mysteriously showed up at your door (but wouldn't you always?), but I'm not going to run to the nearest health clinic (or wherever you would go) and make them scan every dust and particle in the latest package from Amazon, BestPrices, DVDPlanet, etc.

    8. Re:you're more likely to die by evilviper · · Score: 2

      It wouldn't be all the difficult to have guaranteed authentication.

      If Yahoo Mail PGP Signed all of it's outgoing mail, then for once we'd know for a fact that a e-mail did in-fact come from that yahoo mail account. But there's no real money in it for them. Another service must do it, and when they see their market-share dropping because of their lack of that feature, they'll suddenly be very interested in what the people want.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:you're more likely to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're much more likely to be killed by a tree than by a "terrorist" anthrax infection. Look at the mortality statistics geez, one guy dies from what amounts to a very sever flu, some other people go on antibiotics and by all accounts will recover swell, even untreated it has 80% survival rate.

      Cripes, 1000 people have died on our highways since the one old guy died of anthrax where's the sense of proportion?

      Anthrax is a lame assed "weapon of mass destruction", it's not contagious, it's difficult to get infected by even if you're exposed, there's antibiotics, what is everyone so freaked out by?
      What amazes me is that I work in biotech and some people at my lab are worried "becuase it was mailed to someone", that's so goofy, someone could mail much more effective (but dull) poisons than anthrax but since it's a "biological" threat everyones freaking out.
      I'm far more concerned with idiots driving SUVs who tend to run my bicycle off the road because THAT is a clear and present danger, even if I open up an anthrax laced letter the odds are pretty damn good I'd pull through.

    10. Re:you're more likely to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four weeeks ago comment like this would have been at -1 Troll. Glad to see people are starting to get over the Sept 11th thing, nothing sucks more than public demand for political correctness.

    11. Re:you're more likely to die by Kanasta · · Score: 2

      I don't know about how legal snail mail is, but at work we use email for customer authorisations for us to go ahead with work, do changes, have production outages for upgrades, and charge them lots of money.

      So I guess it must be good enough for most ppl.

    12. Re:you're more likely to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This current attack is not very effective at causing large numbers of deaths BUT it is bisible and makes people very nervous.

      My guess is that whoever is behind this attack had hoped to start at least a small epidemic. If you test anthrax on many animals you would see much more transmission than with humans. I doubt even a large terrorist group would have the resources to do much human testing.

    13. Re:you're more likely to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if there were thousands dying from this, it would be a troll. As it is, this attack is almost something of a relief. What it really shows is that terrorists haven't yet figured out how to use bacteria for mass murder.

    14. Re:you're more likely to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nothing sucks more than public demand for political correctness.
      I'd say having 6000 people die in a collapsing building sucksmore than public demand for political correctness.

    15. Re:you're more likely to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Yahoo Mail PGP Signed all of it's outgoing mail, then for once we'd know for a fact that a e-mail did in-fact come from that yahoo mail account.

      If the IP address of the last sending server is an IP address of Yahoo, you know for a fact that an email did in-fact come from that yahoo mail account. I don't see the advantage here.

    16. Re:you're more likely to die by evilviper · · Score: 2

      No, what the IP address tells you is that it MIGHT have come from yahoo, OR that the person that sent it is good at forging headers. PGP is much harder to falsify.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    17. Re:you're more likely to die by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      What gets me is that these people now afraid for thier lives have always been in danger of dying. I'm sure through out the course of the day there are at least 5 things that could have killed someone (driving comes to mind..).

      As one of my HS english teachers said, 'We begin dying the minute we are born.' We should just accept it, and realize no matter what we do, we will die.

      We judge a book by its content, not its length. We should just our lives the same way, and simply enjoy each day. I hope the recent events have taught us just how important each day is.

    18. Re:you're more likely to die by kitzilla · · Score: 1

      The primary motivation in switiching to email is financial: after the investment in hardware and training, email is cheaper than USPS, and much cheaper than overnight service.

      The folks I work for (a big media company) started moving us away from snail mail late last year. Almost everything internal is paperless now.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    19. Re:you're more likely to die by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Don't have my translation of the Poetic Edda handy but Havamal says exactly the same thing. Something like:

      "Cattle die. Kinsmen die.
      And you eke too shall die.
      But one thing that never dies
      Is the fame by each man won."

      Typical Viking wisdom... But I think that it is true today. Don't worry about when you die. Worry about what they woll or won't say when you're gone...

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    20. Re:you're more likely to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that using Outlook is more dangerous than getting infected by Anthrax, even if it is a skin infection, you're stupid. But Anthrax has been around us for a long time, and always will. Since the terro...idiots don't have access to any former SU military-grade Anthrax delivery systems, then it's not gonna be used as a mass casualty weapon. Right now the Anthrax thing is no different, and no worse, than getting a Unabomber package a few years ago.

      Granted, you only have to be (un)lucky once...

      But since you're not going to die from using Outlook, then you need to get some more perspective on life.

      How come none of these idiot terrorists try sending stuff thru UPS/FedEx? They can send their letter bombs from a Mailboxes Etc just about anonymously, or whatever, and no one will be the wiser...

    21. Re:you're more likely to die by rark · · Score: 2

      okay, sending something that is likely to *kill* you is possible (though unlikely) with snail-mail and not with email (unless they perfected that 'exploding monitor' virus recently and it hasn't hit /. yet ;) )

      other than that, I'm inclined to agree about the hysteria.

    22. Re:you're more likely to die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FedEx, UPS - credit card transaction

      Mailboxes Etc. - face to face interaction, possible video surveillance

      US Mail is by far the most anonymous. Buy the stamps, and drop letters in the box. Even then, I seriously doubt they could get away with mailing more than a thousand before getting caught at it.. it's simply a lot of stuff to mail, and it's hard to avoid leaving a pattern. But hopefully they don't have much of the stuff at all to begin with.

    23. Re:you're more likely to die by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      If you want to be really paranoid you could assume that the "anthrax mailers" are trying to move the snails to the ether. If that is true, then what is their motive or their next move?

      Consider that email is, for the most part and for most people, not a secure transaction. Could it be that the infrastructure of email and electronic interchange is the next target?

      Or could it be that they just want to wreak havoc in any way possible, and there is no motive other than that.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  6. Hmm.... by s88 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can someone help me, im trying to find out how to send a "written" letter using email?

    Scott

    1. Re:Hmm.... by thilmony · · Score: 2, Funny

      How's this?

      http://www.thilmony.com/duh/duh.jpg

      I would email it to you, but I don't have your email address. Should I print it and snail mail it to you?

      --
      YES, there is a McDonald's in Hanoi Square.
    2. Re:Hmm.... by spudnic · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, because it's far too easy for someone to do this:

      http://home.jam.rr.com/netadmin/duh2.html

      --
      load "linux",8,1
    3. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the definitions of the verb "writing" is "to compose," which does not imply the thing on which the writing occurs. I write emails all the time.

    4. Re:Hmm.... by Kwelstr · · Score: 1

      Well, you can instead try sending the written letter via fax.

      So, seriously, if fax, that reaches a much bigger percentage of the population has not killed snail mail, why whould e-mail? I think that logic is flawed...

      --


      ~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s :-/
    5. Re:Hmm.... by thilmony · · Score: 1

      it wasn't THAT easy, I bet that it took you at least a minute to think of, then another minute to do.

      --
      YES, there is a McDonald's in Hanoi Square.
    6. Re:Hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how long did it take you to get a pen and paper, write it, scan it, and put it on your web server?

    7. Re:Hmm.... by s88 · · Score: 1

      http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=wri te

      mostly not.

  7. How are you gentlemen by Shiska · · Score: 1, Funny

    I send you this Anthrax to have your advice. Bye. Thanks for stopping by.

    !

    --
    ----------------- ------------ ---- --- - - - -
    Your honor is perfectly understandishable.
    1. Re:How are you gentlemen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww come on give that one a +1 funny hehehe thats the best joke so far.

  8. Anthrax sent to microsoft employees by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If microsoft wants to avoid having employees come down with anthrax, they should try to get the terrorists to send the letters to departments at microsoft which don't exist and therefore the mail would be lost in the mail system and never delivered and opened. Names such as the "Microsoft Usability Testing Group" and the "Microsoft Security Testing Group" would be excellent choices.

    1. Re:Anthrax sent to microsoft employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhh. Good ole Slashdot. The only online publication whose readers exploit a national disaster to insult Microsoft. Unfortunately, In Ukab the Great's zeal to be the first of many to do the same, he made a few mistakes. First, he used his +2 bonus for something which is most obviously crap. Next, he reached to far to slam them. You need to let the jokes come naturally.

    2. Re:Anthrax sent to microsoft employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really. Something simple would have gone much further.... "It's all M$'s doing; who gives a shit about email viruses now?"

    3. Re:Anthrax sent to microsoft employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, they should learn from Linux, who has such a great history of stability testing their broken kernel releases... *cough*

    4. Re:Anthrax sent to microsoft employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to sux the big long dongos me lad.

    5. Re:Anthrax sent to microsoft employees by xmedar · · Score: 1

      More likely Oracle so they can push their ID cards, just look for the marketing line item in the annual report where it says "Biological marketing campaign".

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
  9. What is an "Anthrax thread"? by Sydney+Weidman · · Score: 2

    I thought they were using powder...

    1. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by omnirealm · · Score: 2, Informative

      I meant to type "threat." It's this strange curse, I guess. No matter how hard I try, typo's always seem to slip through...

      --
      An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
    2. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by leviramsey · · Score: 2

      Something that Scott Ian wears?

    3. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either that, or you're retarded.

      My money's on retarded.

    4. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by hedgefrog · · Score: 1

      You know they actually feel sorry about their name choice now. Details here. BBSpot also has a pretty funny story about it.

      --

      I lost my copy of the green golf ball joke can anyone find it for me?
    5. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by xmedar · · Score: 1

      "Anthrax thread" comes from the wool of sheep on the island of Gruinard in Scotland see here

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    6. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by Troodon · · Score: 1

      I thought they were using powder.

      The powder is to prevent clumping, protect the spores to during transport?, and ease the formation of a dusty aerosol to make it more likely that someone will inhale the spores upon disturbing the power through opening the mail.

      Moreover by making this visible powder a chracteristic of such attacks one can then interspead fake attacks with ones that really do contain the spores, all will generate the same panic, require the same decomtamination upheaval.

      --
      troodon.net
    7. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by budgenator · · Score: 5, Informative
      I was an NBC, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, Defense NCO before I retired so here goes. Note I don't know your actual needs, threat levels ect. so your milage may vary, these are My own opinions and don't reflect any org's official policies, this is not intended to be authorative info so do your own research ect.
      • Spores are used because they are more hardy than active bacteria, basicaly spores are desicated bacteria. That's why 70 percent alcohol is used to disinfect stronger alcohol would dryout the bacteria and actualy make them harder to kill (anthrax spores remain viable for as long as a half century)
      • To get the spores, you need to grow the bacteria, use generaly use agar, beef brooth or something simmilar (I'm not sure what you would use for anthrax, but it can't be that hard to find out)
      • once you get the bacteria grown, you dry out the culture media, maybe freeze-dry or something now you have a very concetrated source of bacteria spores. typicaly this is powdered and has a color similar to the culture media a brown, tan or dried blood color depending on the original culture media
      • dilute the concentrated spore powder with a carrier like talcum powder to an appropriate working strength
      • dust the carrier with the powder and deliver

      To defend against this:
      1. publish a policy that all mail to your organisation maybe open in the mail room, set up so a random number of pieces are checked, and anything suspicious.
      2. open the mail in an isolation enviroment, look at OSHA's Bloodborne pathogens standard for guidelines on doing this
      3. watch-out for powders, things that are fluorecent, maybe consider spraying with luminal to detect blood, unexpected arivials or thing that are out of character; why would you get porno pics in your biz mail ect.
      4. Still unsure consider using ethylene-oxide sterilization of the mail

      Actualy considering the threat from natural stuff like hepitius-B Aids, and even cold-flu viruses, these proceedures may actualy save lost time expenses from natural illnesses too.

      Personaly I consider that mail to people in your distribution channel to be at higher risk than other employees, because they handle thing that are in turn redistributed to others. Given the long incubation times between contact and symptoms for most things, a problem here would spread long before any one would know there is a problem. Its not that hard to get your janitor to put disinfectants in his cleaning solutions, use vacuumes with HEPA filtrations ect.

      I'm a dental technician now and we have to recieve bio-hazardous material routinely and follow the osha standards at work, the result is I always catch my cold from the wife and kids first! this stuff works. If your org expereinces a lot of absenteeism due to illness, infection control training may actualy be profitable due to reduced absentee expenses
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by Troodon · · Score: 1

      Thankyou for the illumination, and it deservers a few more positive mod points in my humble opinion.

      How resiliant are Antrax spores? Would the range of energy used in radiation sterilization used for medical equipment, perisable foods and so forth be enough to denature the spores? Cost is a factor, but as long as you can give an overkill dose to the mail, quality assurance testing would be minimal, thus the process not too expenisve?

      --
      troodon.net
    9. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anthrax thread is like the thread in Outlook that runs VBS

    10. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by budgenator · · Score: 2

      surgical instruments get 4000 cGy (RADS), from Co60. I suppose that they test against bacteria that are highly rad resistant. Steam sterilization is test against a bacteria that will not eve grow untill it get to 140 degrees

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by prizog · · Score: 2

      AIDS via mail is not a threat - the virus is not hardy enough to survive outside the body for very long, and it can only be transmitted through bodily fluids.

    12. Re:What is an "Anthrax thread"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encysted bacteria are extremely hardy when they're spores.

      Read "The Coming Plague"...

  10. Nothing Important by NSupremo · · Score: 1

    Most mail is Spam.
    Most mail is a BIll.

    I toss them all in the trash anyway.

    I've always felt the USPS should deliver only Three times a week. (They can't do that because there is so much SPAM and Bills piling up constantly.)

    --
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_co ntroversies_and_irregularities
    1. Re:Nothing Important by telstar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, who needs to pay those silly bills anyway?
      They just send you another one next month!

    2. Re:Nothing Important by weaselgrrl · · Score: 1

      Actually, I really wish they didn't send me most of those paper bills. I pay almost all of mine online and never open most of the envelopes stuffed with bleached and printed printed dead trees.

      --
      I spent all of those years as Anonymous Coward and all I got was this lousy number (204976).
    3. Re:Nothing Important by LinuxHam · · Score: 2

      Same here. For the last few cars I bought, I would literally go home and setup automatic payments to go out for the life of the loan. (wiping hands) Done. I love it, too, because the loans all picked up on the fact that I pay the bill on the same exact day with a cashier's check (or electronically - I let the bank work it out) and I *never* include the payment coupon. After even just one payment, the never send me a bill.

      Now if my freaking mortgage could conceive of that concept, I'd have a little less paper coming in. Hell it would help greatly if I could get the supermarkets to stop sending me the crap that goes right in the can. Anyone know how to do that?

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    4. Re:Nothing Important by NSupremo · · Score: 1

      We have to PAY to dispose of our garbage.

      We should charge people who send us mail.

      --
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_co ntroversies_and_irregularities
    5. Re:Nothing Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...as well as those @#$@#$'ing peeps that throw little newspaper like shoppers in our driveways.

  11. Hmm... by chris-johnson · · Score: 1

    I find it odd that we still use 'snail mail', atleast as much as we do. It certainly seems like everyone and their grandmother has an email account now (even if they don't have a computer or internet access in their home, an internet cafe or library or such near them almost undoubtedly does). The advantages of email to snail certainly seem to be enough that snail mail should magically disappear sometime when we're not looking...

    Perhaps the anthrax scare will quicken the process, but I doubt it. I believe it'll happen soon, but that this won't make it happen any quicker.

    --

    <wik>/bin/finger that girl in the back row of machines.
    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I find it odd that we still use 'snail mail', atleast as much as we
      >do. It certainly seems like everyone and their grandmother has an
      >email account now (even if they don't have a computer or internet
      >access in their home, an internet cafe or library or such near them
      >almost undoubtedly does). The advantages of email to snail certainly
      >seem to be enough that snail mail should magically disappear sometime
      >when we're not looking...
      >Perhaps the anthrax scare will quicken the process, but I doubt it. I
      >believe it'll happen soon, but that this won't make it happen any
      >quicker.
      >
      >
      You people are a bunch of idiots. Sorry to break it to you, but most people aren't interested in paying a monthly $25-$50 monthly fee for mail, plus all the cute hidden charges that'll be thrown in. There *ARE* no real advantages of e-mail over so-called snail mail,and you're an utter fool if you think otherwise.

    2. Re:Hmm... by part!cle · · Score: 0

      "me fail english? thats unpossible!" Is a ralphism from the Simpsons!

      --
      If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
    3. Re:Hmm... by evilphish · · Score: 1

      i agree until i am able to send objects via e-mail i'm not about to stop using usps

      --


      who sez death can't be funny....www.endlesssorrow.com
    4. Re:Hmm... by dangermouse · · Score: 1
      Your sig is originally a quote of Ralph Wiggum from "The Simpsons". :)

      That said... try getting Grandma to email you a tin of her world-famous chocolate chip cookies.

    5. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      try getting Grandma to email you a tin of her world-famous chocolate chip cookies.

      NO!! Don't do it! For the love of God, don't even joke about such a thing with your grandmother! Do you have any idea how hard it is to get those chocolate chunks back out of the CD drive? =)

    6. Re:Hmm... by chris-johnson · · Score: 1

      You all seem to be missing my point (or not understanding it, one or the other). When I say email versus snail mail, I'm referring to letters, not packages. And perhaps some things we consider to be packages now will take on an electronic form: Catalogs, magazines, books...

      Someone mentioned that email offered no advantage and that people were not willing to pay $25-$30 a month for email. Couple of points here. The advantages, atleast in my humble opinion, are speed (two seconds versus two weeks), convenience (click and i have my mail, click and i've read my mail, click and i've gotten rid of my mail. As opposed to go outside and get my mail, walk back inside and read my mail, walk to the trashcan and throw away my mail). I'm not sure how much of the garbage in our landfills are paper products from mailing things, but I would imagine it's a fairly considerable proportion, using electronic mail would help to cut down on the amount of trash we throw away. Apparently no one read the part of my original response "even if they don't have a computer or internet access in their home, an internet cafe or library or such near them almost certainly does." Go to the library, sign up with hotmail or a similar service and there you go. I don't know about you all, but the libraries I've gone to don't charge you to use their computers to get on the internet, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by $25-$30/month.

      Another individual stated that their mother and grandmother can't use email. Well, at one time in their lives they couldn't drive a car, but I've got a feeling they can now (ie, someone needs to, and will, teach them if they ask someone to). You also mentioned that we are privileged for having access to computers? I'm not saying that we aren't, but I don't think a computer is excessive in cost, and if they are just going to use the computer for email or what not then hell, a 486 would work ($20 at your local junkomart) or perhaps one of the little email/internet only appliances you see here and there from time to time. And as far as connecting to the internet goes, there are plenty of places that are willing to provide you with free access (normally only 56k though) if you're willing to stare at their ads.

      In conclusion, by snail mail I'm referring to letters (bills, letters to friends/relatives, etc), not the new motherboard you ordered. If you want to learn to use email, then you will learn it. It's not expensive by any means (I think it's interesting that so many people buy computers and things that are so much more powerful, and thus more expensive, than they really need. A 486 or so can check email for God's sake).

      Email is fast, convenient, cheaper (for a flat monthly fee, or free, you can send pretty much an infinite number of emails. As opposed to having to pay $0.34 for a stamp, $0.25 for a envelope, $0.10 for a sheet of paper, etc... I already know someone will read that and say "Yeah, well you have to spend $150 for a monitor, $10 for a keyboard, ...". I just mentioned that it's not as expensive as people are making it out to be. You might have to settle for a Buick instead of a Cadillac, but it'll get you where you need to go). And that's all I have to say until someone responds and I must respond back.

      --

      <wik>/bin/finger that girl in the back row of machines.
    7. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah.

    8. Re: Hmm... by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      ...and all the convienece of click, I have my mail goes down the tubes for people using a library or internet cafe as their base.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    9. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my home city, the library isn't open 2 days a week and is open only a half day on Fridays. It takes approximately an hour at the library to get time on one of their computers. My city has a notoriously slow and inefficient bus system to get to the library. While most everyone _technically_ has access to email, it is by no means as convenient as snail mail for a large segment of the population. Library acess to computers is difficult, especially those who don't have a car due to poverty (or for some other reason can't drive), don't have an extrordinarily large amount of time on their hands, and work during the hours that libraries are open.

    10. Re: Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ...and all the convienece of click, I have my mail goes down the tubes
      for people using a library or internet cafe as their base.
      >
      >
      Like I said,those advocating switching over to e-mail are a bunch of utter fools.

    11. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are plenty of places that are willing to provide you with free access

      Name three

  12. Okay... by thrig · · Score: 1

    More people are going to be using Outlook.

    This is a good thing how?

    1. Re:Okay... by superpeach · · Score: 1

      I cant see people getting rid of snail-mail in the near future, he said that for packages and things there is UPS or FedEx or whoever.. what stops antrax being 'delivered' via any of them? All physical deliveries would need to be stopped to make sure. Noone will consider abandoning snail-mail until teleportation devices are created :) but of course, even then someone could attach antrax to an email - and how many times would you end up with a half CPU half fly turning up at upgrade time?

    2. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More people are going to be using Outlook.

      Great, anthrax or Nimda...

    3. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux: it saves lives!

      cantelope

    4. Re:Okay... by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      UPS and FedEx packages would not be as good for anthrax delivery for a couple of reasons.

      1. They are tracked more extensively than regular mail.

      2. Generally, most people do not receive unsolicted UPS or FedEx packages. It would be easy to take precautions when you get an unsolicited package, since that in itself is an unusual event.

    5. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1. They are tracked more extensively than regular mail.
      >
      >2. Generally, most people do not receive unsolicted UPS or FedEx
      >packages. It would be easy to take precautions when you get an
      >unsolicited package, since that in itself is an unusual event.
      >
      >
      You never really dealt with UPS or FedEx on a constant (daily) basis have you?
      I have friends who work in the shipping and recieving dept at the local K-Mart and they get packages meant for Wal-Mart all the time. I still get a laugh over the shipment of live lobsters that UPS left with them that was meant for Wal-Mart's seafood dept. (The local Wal-Marts have a supermarket inside them)

  13. email will work until...... by kammat · · Score: 1

    someone unleashes anthrax.vbs against Outlook users worldwide.

  14. on top of NBC.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...dont forget MS's Anthrax scare....

    Their Reno, Nevada office has a letter that tested positive for anthrax. See http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/10/13/an thrax/index.html

    interestingly enough, that's MS's Licensing Dept

    1. Re:on top of NBC.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ...dont forget MS's Anthrax scare....
      >Their Reno, Nevada office has a letter that tested positive for
      >anthrax. See http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/conditions/10/13/an
      >thrax/index.html [cnn.com]
      >interestingly enough, that's MS's Licensing Dept
      >
      >
      >
      Maybe the MS laywers decided to harass the wrong people in Nevada?

    2. Re:on top of NBC.... by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      I have a number of friends that work for Microsoft. They have asked me whether Microsoft is likely to be the target of a terrorist attack, and after thinking about it, I had to answer, "no." Terrorists are interested in attacing things that Americans identify with. Coca Cola headquarters would be a better bet.

      However on second thought, there are some areas of the world whick may associate Microsoft with foreign dominance and so the company could be a target, but not a serious one because its main function would be to secure more funds from discontented wealthy folk. I would be more concerned about the subsidiaries in the Middle East than at Redmond...

      That is why I wonder about it being sent to the licnesing department. If there is one area that could represent foreign dominance, that would be it.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:on top of NBC.... by jeffy124 · · Score: 1

      actually, the story goes something like this:

      1) MS Licensing mails a check to a vendor in Malaysia for work they've done for MS. This was a few weeks ago.
      2) Said mail is received at Reno in original envelope marked "Return to Sender." The person receiving it notices the envelope has been opened and resealed. This was a few days ago.
      3) Upon opening it, he/she finds original check sent a few weeks ago and the letter that accompanied it. Also finds pornographic magazine clippings with a "powdery substance" on one of those pictures.
      4) First two tests the past two days come up with mixed results (one positive, one negative). Better tests on the substance come up positive. This last set of tests was today (Saturday)

      My guess is an insider with the mail system between Reno and Malaysia did this (or at least had a hand in it). I dont think the Malaysian vendor would turn away money from Microsoft (especially since it's money they earned from them). Of course, there could always be an insider at the vendor who contributed.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  15. Not a fUx1N' troll!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    steven levy is full of shit. dammit!

  16. As Norm MacDonald used to say... by Tony+Shepps · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Read this, and other stories, in this month's edition of 'Duh' magazine."

  17. What about the USPS? by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1

    Are they going to start giving free e-mail from usps.gov, or mail.gov, or some equivalent, or just slowly die? After all, almost nobody mails any packages through the USPS, just letters and junk mail, and e-mail has pretty much taken over the junk mail too.

    1. Re:What about the USPS? by Sonicboom · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time the .gov passes legislation to eliminate junk mail... that way it'll be easier for postal inspectors to look for suspicious stuff.

      --
      [Connection closed by foreign host]
    2. Re:What about the USPS? by spudnic · · Score: 2

      If they got rid of junk mail I doubt they would make enough money to not ask Congress for huge subsidies.

      --
      load "linux",8,1
    3. Re:What about the USPS? by shatteredpottery · · Score: 1
      Boy, there's a chicken-and-the-egg problem - they have to have all that equipment and personnel to support the huge volumes of junk mail, and they pull in a lot of money from the junk. But if there was suddenly no junk mail (and they eliminated the requisite infrastructure), would they still be operational? They don't make that much money off junk mail... it costs a company something like 19 cents/piece to send it, far less than you and I pay... hmm. Interesting question.

      I expect our economy would completely self-destruct if direct marketing ceased.

      --

      A witty saying is worth nothing - Voltaire

    4. Re:What about the USPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you THAT diluded? Do you really think that nobody uses USPS as a legitimate courier?

    5. Re:What about the USPS? by COAngler · · Score: 1
      I expect our economy would completely self-destruct if direct marketing ceased.



      I doubt it. When's the last time you bought something from a fourth-class mailing? Particularly an unsolicited one?



      Looking through the last week's mail for me....one credit card bill. One bank statement. Something from my wife's professional association. A letter from my mom and some pictures of the farm.



      Oh, and twenty-three bulk-rate mailings. A mixture of two credit cards with "low, low 9.9% introductory rates" and $100 annual fees, junk mail from John Elway's car dealership, three solicitations to invest in real estate in Denver's overpriced market, a solicitation for an investment services firm in CA (which ISTR that the SEC is on the verge of shutting down), and a pound of other circulars addressed to "resident."



      Would you buy a car based upon junk mail?



      The only people who would be out of business would be the frauds and scam artists who make up the DMA.



      Not that I necessarily support a ban on junk pmail. Junk email, OTOH....

    6. Re:What about the USPS? by Megahurts · · Score: 1

      my suggestion would be radiating the mail the same way some foods are. That should kill any bacterial agents, and probably wouldn't cost a whole lot to add to the existing infrastructure.

    7. Re:What about the USPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm.. Right.

      Sorry, but after having UPS lose and damage packages constantly, everything that doesn't need to be there absolutely fraggin' yesterday gets mailed via USPS.

      FedEx takes the rest. ;)

      I've yet to have FedEx or USPS lose or damage a damned thing. UPS? Full Tower case, that soundcard/cd-rom that ended up in LA (I'm on the EAST FRIGGIN COAST), the 20GB drive, random anime DVD's..

      I could go on.

      Luckily, in all but one instance, the companies who sold me the goods immediately set out to replace them - shipping them via a different service.

    8. Re:What about the USPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody mails packages anymore? I guess that explains the 1/3 of a million packages the facility I work in processes every day!

    9. Re:What about the USPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I expect our economy would completely self-destruct if direct marketing ceased.

      Hmm. Money flows from consumers (through higher prices) to stores to the post office to the postal employees. Why not just tax the consumer directly for the postal employees through sales tax? You could even have opt-in, targetted sales brochures sent to you with the money saved through the processing.

  18. Could be a good thing. by kmcmartin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the interest of authentication, perhaps this would be a good thing. If more people used digital signatures, more people would likely find it easier to begin using encryption as well. NAI might be kicking themselves over selling off its PGP division after all. How do you know if the bill you got by email is really from your VISA company, and not from Evil Eve the Eavesdropper?

    Most government officials would likely right this off as paranoia, and unnecessary because *nobody* would EVER want to wiretap its citizens and steal their credit card information.

    1. Re:Could be a good thing. by LinuxHam · · Score: 2

      +1, Insightful if I had it.

      I never really thought about it, but imagine a business sending a package and printing out a barcode to digitally sign the package with an MD5 of the source and destination addresses. Then when the post office recieves the package, a laser scan of the barcode and visual inspection of the sending and destination address will allow them to accept or reject packages.

      Hell, I think they should already reject packages that have way too much postage and weren't dropped off at a post office, especially those without a return address.

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    2. Re:Could be a good thing. by newbiescum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What stops a person from putting a fake return address now versus having no return address?

  19. What about authentication? by jimhill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's interesting that Levy thinks the end of snail mail is in sight when digital means of authentication are rarely used -- when available. Now that Sen. Gregg and his like-minded compatriots have launched another offensive on crypto software, expect the issue to get even more snarled. It takes more than "Sincerely, Jim" at the bottom of an email to make me trust its source.

    --
    Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
    1. Re:What about authentication? by morcheeba · · Score: 2

      Actually, regular old mail has some pretty darn good authentication. The FBI didn't have much on the unabomber until they compared the DNA from the saliva on the back of a stamp to David Kaczynski's DNA, and verified his fears that his brother Ted may be the guilty one. That's a lot stronger evidence (and much harder to deny) than an ill-placed private key. Of course, this authentication is usually just restricted to law enforcement...

    2. Re:What about authentication? by xmedar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thats why I use a wet sponge and wear gloves whenI mail my...err.. never mind...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
  20. I thought this was supposed to happen years ago .. by aliebrah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really, the average person doesn't need to be worried about getting anthrax in the mail. I don't think its much of an issue - at least its not for me.

    People forget that snail mail is still very important to having an effective communications, as in many cases it can't be beat. The quickest way to get something physical from one place to another (barring courier services) is by mail. To say that the USPS is dead because no one will want to mail stuff is not only premature and unrealistic, but also quite sensationalistic. In most cases, this one especially you can tell when someone is making stuff up to make the headlines rather than writing stuff that actually makes good sense. Having read this article, it makes very little sense at all. As much as I use computers/email, I for one would be majorly pissed if one day I found mail service was no longer there.

    People say time and time again the mail is dead. But just look ... its still there and doesn't show any sign of disappearing.

  21. With all the talk of a new police state..... by ainsoph · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You would think that the FBI would do a lot better than this with regards to the Anthrax "crisis".

    I think it is pretty damn scary that they can ignore something like this for as long as they did.

    FBI did not test suspect NBC package for 2 weeks


    NEW YORK: The FBI failed to test the suspicious powder sent to an NBC employee in New York for two weeks and it was a private doctor who raised the alarm over the new case of anthrax, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

    The report said that the FBI was notified about the powder on September 25, picked it up a day later but did not do any laboratory tests on the powder or take skin samples from the NBC employee who handled the package.

    The report said that it was only after the NBC staffer - identified as 38-year-old Erin O' Connor - developed a sore on her chest, visited several doctors and was diagnosed with skin anthrax that the powder was tested.

    The powder was eventually found to be negative. New York FBI chief Barry Mawn said that it was "unfortunate" the tests were not conducted immediately. Mawn said that the FBI had investigated dozens of suspicious substances since the September 11 terrorist attacks.


    Unfortunate, yes but for the first few days that this was coming up they really tried to downplay it like it was not going on. On 'Politically Incorrect' a replublican strategist said they were thinking of suing CNN for falsly creating a Anthrax scare.

    Doesnt look false to me.

    1. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by Picass0 · · Score: 2
      You might consider that the FBI (especially in the NYC area) has alot to do right now. Ever since 9-11 the FBI has been charged by the President with the task of prevention of further attacks. I imagine the FBI is spread thin between the "Ground Zero" investigation, the hunt for evidence to link a state to these acts, and the pursuit of protecting the public from further attack.

      Yes, 2 weeks is a long time, but The Sun employee who died in Florida was the wake up call that made everyone start looking for Anthrax in the mail. That was last weekend when he died.

    2. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by mESSDan · · Score: 1

      The whole basis of your argument is that they didn't test it for two weeks, well, my question is why would two weeks matter? Why would Anthrax have completely disappeared in that small amount of time? Even if it were no longer potent, it should still be THERE.

      --

      -- Dan
    3. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by ainsoph · · Score: 1

      Bill Maher said something I agree with on 'Politically Incorrect' (the night he got in trouble with the Whitehouse). He said, "The Governements main job is to protect us, and I think they fscked up bigtime."

      I agree.

      They did not test it for 2 weeks, thats a bit of a screwup, especially since that was around the time (Sept 25th) they began talking about how there may or may not be some chemical or biological attacks over that weekend. Do you remember those news reports? I sure as heck do.

      My question was in that post and still is, why were they not aware? Why since they were saying there was a good chance that there may be a bio or chemical attack, were they just looking at crop dusting airplanes and not a broad spectrum of different possibilities, like for example, strange powders being sent to media figures. Heck at least the DEA could have made sure it was not coke or something.

      The FBI has had a recent history of being a bunch of fsck ups.

      Missing FBI stuff

      Oversight Commitee

    4. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by Howie · · Score: 1

      , the hunt for evidence to link a state to these acts

      You'd like to think they're finished doing that now since they're actually bombing people.

      --
      "don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
    5. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      , the hunt for evidence to link a state to these acts

      You'd like to think they're finished doing that now since they're actually bombing people.


      Hell yes! Wouldn't it be shame if they find out some other state was responsible? Dubya would have to come up with a brand new excuse for the bombing.

    6. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by Eric+E.+Coe · · Score: 1
      No, they are looking for a more concrete link to states with more capability than than Afganistan/Taliban/Al Queda. Weaponizing anthrax requires substantial resources, which means a state with resources: presumably Iraq.

      It's a good time to attend to the unfinished business we have with Saddam - Bush Sr./Powell dropped the ball big time there 10 years ago.

      --
      An esoteric scratched itch:
      Homeworld Map Maker Tool
    7. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by Picass0 · · Score: 2
      We have yet to respond specifically to the Anthrax attacks. At the time, the Feds have not officially linked the Anthrax to terrorism.

      We are bombing as a respose to the Taliban's failure to meet the demands of the US as issued by President Bush on 9-20.


      Bush demanded that the Taliban turn over all leaders of bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization to U.S. authorities, close its training camps in the country and surrender "every terrorist and every person in their support structure" to appropriate authorities. Also the US would have unconditionion rights to inpects training camps to insure they were longer in operation. He said the demands were not open to negotiation or discussion.

    8. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by jrockway · · Score: 1
      You might consider that the FBI (especially in the NYC area) has alot to do right now.
      Since they're so busy they won't mind getting some anthrax in the mail? Cool, lemme get my stamps!
      --
      My other car is first.
    9. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by markmoss · · Score: 2

      they didn't test it for two weeks, well, my question is why would two weeks matter? Why would Anthrax have completely disappeared in that small amount of time? Anthrax spores are still potent after two _decades_, but that isn't the point. By delaying, the FBI risked the lives of everyone in that office.

      If the terrorists had been competent at preparing the spores (making a fine enough powder to get into the lungs, instead of just infecting the skin), prompt testing would have been a matter of life and death. Inhaled anthrax can be treated -- if you get massive shots of antibiotics soon after being exposed. If you wait until you get sick, it's too late: death rates are at least 99%. Given the Florida incident, any suspicious letter should be immediately tested for anthrax, and if positive then anyone who might have breathed in a bit of the powder should start maximum-strength antibiotic injections immediately.

      Of course, if your agency's primary goal is to grab headlines rather than protect the citizens, then you can wait until you've got a room full of corpses. It doesn't affect the forensic evidence, and the headlines are bigger. But that doesn't describe any agency of our gov't, does it? ;-)

    10. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jrockway -

      You're a fucking moron. I consider your post to be a terrorist threat and I'm considering forwarding it to the FBI. It's not like they can't figure out where you go to school.

      If I had moderator points I'd go through your entire posting history and mod you down. Troll ass punk.

    11. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Lol... mod points as an AC? Hahahahah.

      --
      My other car is first.
    12. Re:With all the talk of a new police state..... by jrockway · · Score: 1

      this is a joke in case you couldn't figure that out yourself

      --
      My other car is first.
  22. Hysteria by Bud+Dwyer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Why should we let terrorists change the way we do business? Isn't that exactly what we don't want?


    So far, we have reports of three letters supposedly laced with Anthrax. One death has resulted, and no more deaths seem likely. These are hardly numbers warranting an end to snail mail.


    The news media seriously needs to stop trying to incite hysteria in the American public.

    1. Re:Hysteria by Jebus_the_spork · · Score: 0

      no, the thing that will scare people from mail is exactly that, the scare. Most users of /. are slightly more educated and not paranoid than the general public. If you go up to the shopping mom in the supermarket, she will tell you about a picture of a guy she seen standing on top of the WTC with the plane coming at him. She will tell you about every chain email she has ever recieved. Everything she sees on the news. She will tell you that you're going to be drafted to go to war.

      the general public is easily scared. plain and simple.

      --
      I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows - Bart Simpson
    2. Re:Hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the general public is easily scared. plain and simple.

      Sounds like you're the paranoid one. My mom is quite smart, thank you.

  23. Snail mail won't be entirely lost by ruszka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While many people may have to switch to e-mail if this anthrax scare continues, I doubt it'll completely kill snail mail.. People are sentimental, or at least I am. I love receiving handwritten letters from my friends and family.. not to mention photos I can hold in my hand and hang on my wall.. e-mail won't replace this for me..

    1. Re:Snail mail won't be entirely lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love receiving handwritten letters from my friends and family..

      Have them buy a scanner

      not to mention photos I can hold in my hand and hang on my wall..

      And buy a high quality photo printer

    2. Re:Snail mail won't be entirely lost by ruszka · · Score: 1

      And what? Buy synthetic gems? Just because it's easier? I don't want a COPY of something.

    3. Re:Snail mail won't be entirely lost by vought · · Score: 1
      A coward said:

      Have them buy a scanner

      Disks fail, virtually no computers in the consumer space come with adequate backup software. Media changes throughout the years; paper is still readable after thousands.

      And buy a high quality photo printer

      Dye-based inks fade very quickly. More permanence igment-based inks don't have the color saturation and vibrance (as well as serious problems with metamerism) to match conventional photographic film and papers.

      Sounds like you want a temporary memory society. That's bad for history and bad future generations.

  24. something last night happened like this by Cheetah86 · · Score: 1

    Last night at my high school they recieved a shipment of SAT books for this mornings tests. Apparently they had some kind of powder on them and a squad was called in to investigate and contaminate a possible threat. I heard this from a few people today but nothing official from the school. It seems that security standards have been raised after the recent attacks. Better safe than sorry I guess.

    1. Re:something last night happened like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Last night at my high school they recieved a shipment of SAT books for this mornings tests. Apparently they had some kind of powder on them and a squad was called in to investigate and contaminate a possible threat

      So, how'd you do on the test?

  25. Great... by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great. I'm looking forward to a whole Inbox full of "I send you this anthrax to have your advice...".

    1. Re:Great... by norculf · · Score: 1

      I wish I had a mod point for you.

      Lowest UID I have seen yet besides CmdrTaco too..

  26. Crude as this sentiment is.... by Chas · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's nothing a few hundred megatons in the right places couldn't cure.....

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Crude as this sentiment is.... by MagicM · · Score: 1

      Although nuking sites that are suspected to be infected with Anthrax would probably kill any virus, that is a very crude way to do it, yes.

    2. Re:Crude as this sentiment is.... by dhogaza · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like on the good 'ole USA? (There's no proof thus far that these cases are the result of any external terrorist group. It could well be a good 'ole boy here in the US pissed of at "the libral media's showing Osama bin Laden's videotaped propaganda" or the like).

    3. Re:Crude as this sentiment is.... by vanguard · · Score: 1

      Insightful? C'mon, you're best guess is that a good 'ole boy attacked a supermarket tabloid, Nightline News, and Microsoft?

      Here's the MSFT link in case you haven't seen it.

      I know we need to be fair but let's be honest, we have a prime suspect.

      --
      That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
    4. Re:Crude as this sentiment is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm well lets just nuke the fuckers just in case. I think he meant to say KILTONS, not megatons... i.e., ICBM Peacekeepers LGM 118A inserted rectally

    5. Re:Crude as this sentiment is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, well. We get hit with anthrax, but it throws MS into a tizzy. Silver lining...

      Too bad it couldn't just be the flu, or something productivity-destroying but not fatal...

    6. Re:Crude as this sentiment is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article: "The suspicious envelope contained pornographic magazine clippings that appeared to have had contact with moisture."

    7. Re:Crude as this sentiment is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Chas, you might find one hundred megaton bombs impressive, but people with the blessing of Allah do not fear that at all. They are more willing to die, more than you are willing to live..weapons and death do not scare these people, which is why they are a VERY VERY dangerous enemy.

    8. Re:Crude as this sentiment is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As Ripley would say "Dust off and nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure", or were you meaning taking out the 1-1.5 billion people in the Mid East?

    9. Re:Crude as this sentiment is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although nuking sites that are suspected to be infected with Anthrax would probably kill any virus, that is a very crude way to do it, yes.

      But times like this demand drastic measures. I say, let's nuke NYC. Just to feel safe.

  27. Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by falloutboy · · Score: 2
    As much as anything under the heading of "biological warfare" is scary, the idea of getting anthrax doesn't send me into a fit of panic.


    I found a bunch of interesting and reassuring information on Heathlinkusa.com.


    The fact is, there exists both a cure for anthrax and even a vaccine. There's an article on ABCNews that explains how anthrax works, and that if caught early enough, it can be treated with penicillin.


    My theory is that the anthrax infections we've been reading about are not the responsibility of terrorists, but just some nutcase somewhere in the country who is trying to scare the hell out of everyone, although I cannot fathom why.

    1. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 1
      the anthrax infections we've been reading about are not the responsibility of terrorists, but just some nutcase somewhere in the country who is trying to scare the hell out of everyone...

      Huh? Wouldn't the nutcase you speak of be a terrorist by definition?

    2. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by jallen02 · · Score: 2

      The "so called" vaccine is really just a toxin they pump into your body that kills the bacteria. Its not a true vaccine in the regular sense. You can't really vaccinate (in the traditional sense) against bacteria.

      The affects of the "vaccine" are debatable, I know people who left the military (dishonorable discharge) over not taking an antrax vaccine. It also involves a series of shots over several weeks followed by a shot every year to keep the toxins up in your body. Cure worse than disease?

      Anthrax is anthrax, if you happen to breath it you die.

      You won't really know you have it until your dead.

      Another intersting fact that should bother everyone here some... The case of inhaled anthrax is the first documented case of anthrax in the last 25 YEARS

      Not just here, anywhere. Of course now everyone will be looking for it so cutaneous may get identified more readily but still... 25 years and not one inhaled case and all of this sudden three cases in two completely different geographical regions?

      A letter sent to microsoft with Anthrax?

      No I doubt anyones gonna send me anthrax, and no im not worried about anyone using anthrax to kill people

      Anthrax is now popularized in the media, there are scarier things out there than anthrax.

      Jeremy

    3. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A few points to note:

      It's only the first documented case because everyone is suddenly afraid of it. It is believed that there have been many cases that were just not recognized because nobody would even think of anthrax as a cause for the symptoms.

      Cutaneous antrax has an 80% survival rate with NO treatment. It's only when it's inhaled or consumed that it's nasty.

      Also, you don't mention that anthrax is NOT contagious. You pretty much have to be a target to get it.

    4. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by dachshund · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The fact is, there exists both a cure for anthrax and even a vaccine. There's an article on ABCNews [204.202.137.111] that explains how anthrax works, and that if caught early enough, it can be treated with penicillin.

      The vaccine is currently reserved for US Military personnel. The company that produces it isn't even capable of meeting the military's needs. Plus, there are a lot of fears about the side effects; some people think it's at least partially responsible for Gulf War Syndrome.

      Pulmonary Anthrax can be treated with antibiotics up to a point. After serious symptoms develop, antibiotics aren't particularly effective. Treating the disease requires knowing that you've been exposed (or may have been exposed), then getting medicated ASAP. In a serious attack, there's no guarantee that these things could happen quickly enough to avoid a good number of deaths.

      My theory is that the anthrax infections we've been reading about are not the responsibility of terrorists, but just some nutcase somewhere in the country who is trying to scare the hell out of everyone

      It's a good theory. But it's still scary to think that there's somebody in the country who's a) got Anthrax, and b) is willing to use it on innocent people. It's not a huge step from there to releasing it in a public place. At this point, our best hope is that they don't have a good mix of the stuff.

    5. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes... i must agree... Napalm is a good weapon, though you actually think Osama is still in Afghanistan ?

      rm -rf /bin/laden

    6. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by stcanard · · Score: 1
      Not just here, anywhere. Of course now everyone will be looking for it so cutaneous may get identified more readily but still... 25 years and not one inhaled case and all of this sudden three cases in two completely different geographical regions?

      Some clarification here -- this is the first case of inhalation anthrax in 25 years. Cutaneuos Anthrax is not uncommon, although it doesn't show up in office buildings very often. Cutaneous anthrax is what has been showing up everywhere except in Florida, and all the people in Florida were exposed together.

      Also, cutaneous anthrax is quite treatable, it cannot be passed between people, and it needs broken skin in order to infect you. In other words, the flu is a much more dangerous illness.

      Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

    7. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by elmegil · · Score: 1

      You need to get your facts straight. The inhaled cases are in *one* geographic region.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    8. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Informative

      As much as anything under the heading of "biological warfare" is scary, the idea of getting anthrax doesn't send me into a fit of panic.

      Inhaled or ingested anthrax is not pretty or very treatable. However, if contracted through the skin, it is relatively easy to treat.

      The thing is it is not very contagious. Therefore, it is not the "good weapon" that you speak of because the target area is so small. How many unsuccessful attempts to infect people with Anthrax were there that we don't know about? Probably a very large number.

      However, it is not destruction or death but fear that these people want to provoke. Anthrax IS a good tool for that because it is a boogey-man.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    9. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genetically altered anthrax, regardless of whether it's aquired through inhailation or contact, can be very dangerous because it may not respond to antibiotics at all. I think well all need to be worried, cause antibiotic resistant stains do exist already and not doubt more are being produced.

    10. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      I agree, now its being looked for obviously its going to be found more often. Im sure tons of cases have went unidentified.

      I realize its not contagious as well.. was just pointing out a few relevant facts.

      I learned about the vaccine from my gf (shes a biology major.. shes much scarier than anything on the news when she talks about this stuff she also thinks anthrax is kinda laughable as a widespread weapon)

      Jeremy
      (CNN Article CNN Dr Talks about Anthrax really great article)

    11. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by jallen02 · · Score: 1

      Anthrax is anthrax is antrhax, how you contract it is all that matters. One guy inhaled it, another person got the skin version.

      Jeremy

    12. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Anthrax letter to Microsoft contained pornography (at least according to news reports).

      For a culture where women aren't even allowed to remove their veils to eat, this sounds very against their "religon".

      Therefore, by simple deduction, my dear Watson, I conclude the Taliban did not send the letter.

    13. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by plugger · · Score: 1
      You can't really vaccinate (in the traditional sense) against bacteria.

      Er, yes you can, with varying degrees of success depending on which organism you want to vaccinate against.

    14. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by jinx90277 · · Score: 1

      Don't be fooled -- the only reason that the current anthrax cases appear trivial is that the delivery system was extremely inefficient. An envelope full of anthrax would not be able to fatally infect more than a few people who directly handled the letter.

      You're right -- if you are aware that you are exposed to anthrax right away, aggressive treatment with antibiotics for long periods (60+ days) is fairly effective. But the danger is that anthrax spores distributed as an aerosol would be invisible, scentless, and could travel for hundreds of kilometers. If the delivery vector was not something obvious (for example -- hang a spray device on the bottom of one of those blimps over a football game), the spores could be distributed without triggering suspicion. Now, instead of one or two people being exposed, you could have up to millions exposed. When the first cases were diagnosed as anthrax, it would already be too late for many of the others.

      --
      "she says i'm lousy conversation. as if that's supposed to help."
    15. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by hacker · · Score: 1
      At this point, our best hope is that they don't have a good mix of the stuff.

      Here's another scary thought to ponder. What if there are people here in the U.S. working for those "evil deeds" who are simply testing our procedures, and perfecting the recipe, so that it passes all the tests we throw at it.

      The Microsoft one has passed two tests, and failed on the third. What if they get the recipe right and it passes the third test? Do we keep trying? What if it passes 9 tests? Do we keep testing?

    16. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by xmedar · · Score: 1

      Yes and if the person sending it had a clue they would have bred a resistant strain by infecting a few test subjects, and administering small doses of penicillin until a resistant strain took hold and then used that, lucky for us all they are too stupid.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    17. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by xmedar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats why the British Government tested on an island of Scotland during WWII, see here

      From the article -

      Despite attempts to disinfect Gruinard Island, the spores left by the experiments kept the island in quarantine for 48 years.

      The final WW II report on the Gruinard Island tests suggested anthrax could be used to render cities uninhabitable "for generations".

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
    18. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by COAngler · · Score: 1
      Pulmonary Anthrax can be treated with antibiotics up to a point. After serious symptoms develop, antibiotics aren't particularly effective.



      ISTR that's true for all of the means of infection, not just pulmonary. A course of antibiotics (I want to say sixty days of Cipro, but I'm not a doctor) is generally effective, but only if it's started before symptoms manifest. Once the patient shows symptoms, though, his immune system has to fight the bug all on its own and antibiotics are irrelevant.



      Treating the disease requires knowing that you've been exposed (or may have been exposed), then getting medicated ASAP. In a serious attack, there's no guarantee that these things could happen quickly enough to avoid a good number of deaths.



      Very true. The Wall Street Journal has actually had a couple of good articles on the subject. One was about a city in Texas which conducted a drill to see if its fire/police/hospital services could handle an outbreak. The results were not good. In the end, they had to (simulated) quarrantine the town.



      The other article that leaps to mind was about the company making the vaccine. They've been jumped on HARD by the FDA over the years for bad sanitary procedures, with no guarantees that the problems have been fixed. The article also noted that, while an estimated 40 million doses of the vaccine exist, they were mostly made in the 50's and 60's, and there is just no reliable information about how much of the stuff is still effective. And then there are the horror stories about side effects...

    19. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by tca · · Score: 1

      Well, some of you have been juggling around the basic issue of delivery as a criterion for judging how freaked out to be about this. Someone has hit already on the point that its pretty easily available and has a nice aerosol factor. Another guy counters with the old, "but it's not infectious." Okey, so here we have a nice little bugger suitable for dropping into an area and tagging a fair proportion of people there, good stuff if you get it into the air for a while. Long lasting, reasonably resilient we add to the plus column. Well, damn, if only there were a way to combine our requirements by tacking on a viral quality. Guess what, can be done and has been done. Not in this case, requires a little bit of cluefulness and resources. Anthrax makes a spiffy container for those with the resources to roll their own bioweaps. But here's the thing... I think the fact that we have seen a limited deployment can indicate one of three things. 1. This is mostly for show and is some form of scare tactic possibly related to all this recent terrorist action. 2. This has nothing to do with current events and is a person or series of persons separately or in coordination seizing the opportunity of this all as cover to try to carry out a selective vendetta against isolated institutions or enemies. 3. Here's the unsettling one. This could really be something of a trial phase, anthrax beta, not yet gone gold. It's not as if most people have a whole lot of experience with this stuff in recent years, could be some kinks to work out. So, longish way to basically say. Yep, no need to run screaming for that cabin in the woods quite yet. Otoh, just because what we've been seeing in the news isn't all that frightening a picture in current configuration doesn't at all mean that Anthrax is "not really a good weapon."

    20. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Taliban aren't terrorists Watson, I think you're thinking of Al Qaeda

    21. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by unitron · · Score: 2
      Some of the hijackers went to a strip club the night before. When your religion basically tells you "Don't think about sex." chances are that that will result in a lot of sexual obsession.

      Also, they probably included the pictures to be sure to get the people who saw the letter to spend a lot of time looking at it and handling it and showing it to others, even if it was just "Hey boss, look what kind of filth was in this returned letter.".

      Of course, since it was returned, it never got to the addressee, and since it was sent to a country with lots of censorship, maybe it was mailed out with that stuff in it, opened at the P.O. in Indonesia, the porno was seen, and the envelope was re-sealed and sent back to MS-Reno.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    22. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by dachshund · · Score: 1
      ISTR that's true for all of the means of infection, not just pulmonary. A course of antibiotics (I want to say sixty days of Cipro, but I'm not a doctor) is generally effective, but only if it's started before symptoms manifest. Once the patient shows symptoms, though, his immune system has to fight the bug all on its own and antibiotics are irrelevant.

      I don't think it's a big deal for cutaneous infection. Those are rarely fatal, with treatment, and I think it's pretty obvious that you have a developing problem before it reaches the potentially dangerous zone.

      Unfortunately, Pulmonary (and I'm not sure about Intestinal) Anthrax doesn't give a whole lot of warning. Coldlike symptoms followed by no symptoms at all... That's an average week for me during the chilly times of year.

      Everything else you say is spot on. Hopefully we wouldn't need to seriously quarantine an Anthrax-infected populace, though, as Anthrax isn't terrifically contageous (unless you get it on your clothes or something.)

    23. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by TeraCo · · Score: 1

      Wrong, as previously stated, one type is far more common and far less deadly then the other, and is being played up by the media.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    24. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only company licensed in the US to make it has had its ups and downs (FDA essentially shutting them down multiple times; financial woes). I remember reading one item, in that the company has/had on its Board one former Admiral Crowe (yes, he was Chairman of the JCS during the Raygun years), and after he got on the Board, the DoD mandates that its personnel have to get it...

      It hasn't been adequately tested (last I knew the only studies were 'level 1' tests, i.e., will this kill the people its given to. No efficacy tests, proper dosages, teratology analysis, etc.)

      My wife was in the Gulf War. The DoD is still doing a big study on it. She "gets" to go back to Wright-Patterson AFB to finish her workup for this in a couple of weeks. *SOMETHING* happened, but we still seem to be stuck in the "well, we can't find out why, so it didn't really happen" mode.

    25. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anthrax would be a perfect thing to spread around a feedlot or dairy farm.

      While it may not cause a lot of damage, the fact that there would be Anthrax spores in the ground, where animals go through, would probably shut the site down, as the place would become a biological Superfund Site overnight.

    26. Re:Anthrax: Not really a good weapon anyway by Dexx · · Score: 1

      My theory is that the anthrax infections we've been reading about are not the responsibility of terrorists, but just some nutcase somewhere in the country

      Wouldn't this make the nutcase a terrorist as he's out and about creating terror for some agenda? If not, why wouldn't he be a terrorist?

      --
      Feel the fear and do it anyway.
  28. Yeah, whatever by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 2

    This is one of the more extreme examples of ridiculous predictions over how life will change in the US after 9/11. The tons of reasons people have used actual written/printed communication in the past continue to exist, and will not easily be supplanted by *anything* electronic. (Think about all the documents we use that require witness signatures or notarizing and then are kept in archives for decades.)

    In other words, this article is just one big troll.

  29. Someone will come up with a snail mail virus scann by mesocyclone · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look at the money to be made! Maybe Symantec or McAfee can come up with a "virus" scanner for Snail Mail. Clearly its needed.

    --

    The only good weather is bad weather.

  30. Minimum wage? by epcraig · · Score: 1

    So minimum wage workers are going to get computers? Sure! Right!
    Even the homeless can get free snail-mail addresses, but email?
    We're not all middle class. Fewer are every day.

    --
    Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
  31. ... where we've been used to virus-mail for ages.. by torpor · · Score: 2

    ... well, at least that's been the case in the United States of Microsoft.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  32. Where do I get one? by flacco · · Score: 2, Funny
    the new anthrax thread in our snail-mail is going to be a major catalyst

    Hey, where did you get the threading snail-mail client?

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    1. Re:Where do I get one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It disappeared as soon as idiots like you came to.

      Think twice before writing such dipshit comment
      just to be on slashdot.

      antrax -> object
      spam -> object

      snail mail ->
      + spam + antrax (threads)

  33. Everyone has e-mail? by jinx90277 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It certainly seems like everyone and their grandmother has an email account now (even if they don't have a computer or internet access in their home, an internet cafe or library or such near them almost undoubtedly does).
    I don't know everyone, but I do know my grandmother, and she doesn't have an e-mail account. My mom has access to e-mail, but that's because my dad is nice enough to print it out and show it to her. Many people in this country either do not have basic computer skills to let them use e-mail, or even the economic status to allow computers to be an item in the monthly budget. Those of us who are debating this question need to realize that we are privileged.

    Perhaps I have a Luddite streak in me somewhere, but I also have an irrational fondness for "old" media: LPs, newspapers, printed books. I suppose someday I can spend a Sunday morning at the local coffee shop reading over the electronic version of the Los Angeles Times on my Palm XVIII, but it won't be the same, and I will miss getting newsprint on my fingers. But I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way, and it will be used as justification to avoid change. E-mail has many advantages, but it belongs to a new generation, it seems. My mother might learn, but my grandmother never will.
    --
    "she says i'm lousy conversation. as if that's supposed to help."
    1. Re:Everyone has e-mail? by dstone · · Score: 2

      I do know my grandmother, and she doesn't have an e-mail account. My mom has access to e-mail, but that's because my dad is nice enough to print it out and show it to her. ... My mother might learn, but my grandmother never will.

      Your desire for past romantic and technically simpler times is touching. But your mom and grandma have a choice here and maybe this is an opportunity for them. Society makes changes during times of war, and it's not all bad. New technologies are born, new customs, new neighbors and friends are made, new skills are learned. Maybe your grandmother can exercise a few neurons (with your help), learn how to read and write an e-mail and expand her horizons. Maybe she'll go to a chat room and meet a new friend. Maybe the internet is what she's been looking for to publish some of her thoughts. In my opinion, more good wisdom could be spread thru e-mail, chat rooms, web sites, online journals, etc. But we need the old, wise people to contribute just as much as the young, spastic geeks!

    2. Re:Everyone has e-mail? by unitron · · Score: 2
      The other day I had the pleasure of handing my mother a letter in her late mother's handwriting, one which had been received, opened and read in 1969 and then used as a bookmark. It languished in that book for the next 30+ years until I chanced upon it.

      I don't think finding an old file in a long ignored sub-directory would have been quite the same.

      By the way, that Levy guy works at Newsweek and the article is posted at MSNBC, not NBC.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  34. LOL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is so hilarious!

  35. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never thought that I would be worried about getting a virus from Snail Mail.

  36. eMail by ZaneMcAuley · · Score: 0

    What about http://www.digiscents.com/ ?

    Feel safer with eMail now :)

    --
    ----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
  37. How crazy is this? by sharlskdy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Someone targets airplanes, and people stop flying. Someone targets mail, and people stop using mail. Is this kind of a response reasonable? There's a lot of knee-jerk reactions which are not necessarily effective, and the economic effects of wholesale eschewment of mail and air travel are pretty widespread.

    This suggestion reminds me of the panic surrounding the unibomber. People were afraid to send and receive packages, although millions of packages were sent through the FedEx, UPS and the mail every day.

    It is upsetting that mail is something we can't implicitly trust after the events of the last week, but it is an extremely useful and, I think, necessary tool. Air travel is still quite safe and I expect to continue to fly when I need to without much thought of what if...

    I refuse to live my life worried every minute about what might happen.

    1. Re:How crazy is this? by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Someone targets airplanes, and people stop flying. Someone targets mail, and people stop using mail. Is this kind of a response reasonable? There's a lot of knee-jerk reactions which are not necessarily effective, and the economic effects of wholesale eschewment of mail and air travel are pretty widespread.

      Yet in other areas people are so incredibly complacent. People will put off travel despite an impossibly remote possibility of being a victim of travel, but they'll happily hop on the local highway without regard for hundreds of 20,000lb transports hurtling down the road at 75mph all around them, any of which could crush them to death in the slightest instant if the driver just flicked the steering wheel the tiniest bit. 41,611 people were killed in automobile accidents alone in 1999 on US roads. 430,700 people died per year between 1990 and 1994 from cigarette smoking alone. It's quite stunning really the fear that the media can drum up when we come to live with enormously costly things like the millions that die every year because of voluntarily choosing to eat Big Macs and other high saturated fat foods.

      I'm not saying that dying at the hand to terrorists is comparable to voluntarily undertaken risks, but it does seem that some things are being grossly overstated, such as the risks of anthrax.

    2. Re:How crazy is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It reminds me of how the news services kept posting the figure "150,000 women die of anorexia every year" when the number is really 1000x less than that--especially after Steinem et al kept publishing the incorrect statistic.

      Let's hear it for media manipulation of public opinion! It really is sad when news orgs lower themselves to the level of "A Current Affair". Oh well.

    3. Re:How crazy is this? by dgroskind · · Score: 2

      ... it does seem that some things are being grossly overstated, such as the risks of anthrax.

      The implications of what your are saying, if there are any implications, is that people shouldn't worry about anthrax until more than 41,611 people are infected per year. Reasonable people do not look at risk this way.

      People typically make a rough risk/reward calculation when they take an action. The benefits of driving are high and the risk fairly low. If there are alternatives to using airplanes and the mail and thereby reduce the risk, however remote, the reasonable thing is to use them.

      In addition, the perceived risks of driving and terrorism are not comparable. Drivers can take reasonable precautions to reduce their risk such as obeying traffic laws, not drinking, keeping their car in repair, etc. There are no similar ways for prudent individuals to reduce the risk from hijacking and bioterrorism except not flying and not using mail.

      So far, the level of panic resulting from the terrorist attacks and the threat of bioterrorism has been low, perhaps unexpectedly low, both in the general public and in public officials. So far, the American public should be complemented for their coolness, not mocked, with irrelevant statistics.

    4. Re:How crazy is this? by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      The implications of what your are saying, if there are any implications, is that people shouldn't worry about anthrax until more than 41,611 people are infected per year. Reasonable people do not look at risk this way.

      No, but panic over one person dying (while incredibly tragic) is just absurd, especially when for all we know some psycho could have been mailing powderized anthrax for years and no one noticed, but now that every doctor is on the lookout for signs of biological weapons, so they are accurately diagnosing it, whereas previously it could have just been diagnosed as something else. We know that the pesticides that we're putting on our lawns is likely killing people through cancer, polluting our groundwater, reducing fertility rates, possibly leading to Parkinson's disease, likely giving kids nasty childhood diseases, etc. On an individual level the risk is low, but across the whole country it does account for many many magnitudes more than the victims of the anthrax attacks, yet it takes an incredible amount of push to get people to stop using them (I guess the "reward" is a golf green lawn), and you're saying that it's credible to stop using mail because one person died?

      In addition, the perceived risks of driving and terrorism are not comparable. Drivers can take reasonable precautions to reduce their risk such as obeying traffic laws, not drinking, keeping their car in repair, etc. There are no similar ways for prudent individuals to reduce the risk from hijacking and bioterrorism except not flying and not using mail.

      The only way to significantly reduce the risk is to not drive. The reality is that more deaths in vehicular accidents are victims of the actions of another moreso than themselves. Drive the speed limit and keep checking those mirrors with your hands at 10 and 2, but it doesn't mean much when Bob slams into your car.

      The point of my whole message was not so much that deaths are acceptable, but rather that you go for the low hanging fruit first normally, rather than a countrywide state of panic because one person died from anthrax. People are dying every day because of multi-ton SUVs colliding with small vehicles, but to get changes would take years and incredible lobbying, yet even then it's unlikely to happen. i.e. You don't see "HOLY SHIT! SOMEONE DIED IN A CAR ACCIDENT! SHUT DOWN THE HIGHWAYS!".

    5. Re:How crazy is this? by dgroskind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a lot of knee-jerk reactions which are not necessarily effective...

      Actually the reactions are extremely effective. Not flying completely eliminates the personal threat of hijacking. Grounding all airplanes was the completely reasonable reaction when the hijackings first occurred and people can reasonably take their cue from that act. Similarly, not using mail completely eliminates the threat of catching a horrible disease from the mail. Many large corporations x-ray parcels in their mailrooms because of the remote possibility of bombs. Until similar methods can be devised for regular mail, individuals must take whatever precautions they can.

      ...and the economic effects of wholesale eschewment of mail and air travel are pretty widespread.

      The idea that one should increase one's risk of dying for the benefit of airline industry or the economy in general is surely one of the least helpful suggestion since Mayor Guiliani suggested everyone go shopping.

      Changing one's behavior when faced with a new threat is a reasonable thing to do. Once the full extent of the threat is known and some countermeasures are in place, people may change their behavior again. The dumbest reaction would be to proceed as if nothing had happened.

    6. Re:How crazy is this? by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      The implications of what your are saying, if there are any implications, is that people shouldn't worry about anthrax until more than 41,611 people are infected per year. Reasonable people do not look at risk this way.
      No, the implication is you (personally) shouldn't worry about anthrax until the danger to your demographic is non-negligable. For almost all Americans, the risk of anthrax is negligable -- that is, it is many orders of magnitude less likely to hurt you than many other dangers in your life.

      Similarly with flying, it would take far more than four planes to bring the risk up to levels for driving. Admittedly, you can reduce your risk while driving, but I suspect that still, flying is a far, far, far safer manner of long-distance travel.

      Trains and buses are still viable, safe alternatives. As with cars, you have to consider the benefits of these various methods with their risk.

    7. Re:How crazy is this? by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      If I understand your argument it is that if you aren't going to worry about automobile accidents or pesticides, then you shouldn't take any action to protect yourself from anthrax.

      My position is that if people can reduce the risk of anthrax infection by not using the mail, they don't have to wait to do so until the automobile accident rate drops.

      Other points of contention:

      panic over one person dying (while incredibly tragic) is just absurd...

      You are distorting the situation. First, there's no panic in usual sense and second, the reaction is not just to one person dying but to the fact that

      anthrax is being sent through the mail

      many more people could die and

      the extent of the threat is unknown.

      It's a fact that people's perception of risk can be wildly at variance with reality. However, there is good reason to think that the level of risk in normal life has risen and will continue to rise for sometime. It may not, but there is good reason to think so or those pictures on television on 9/11 held nothing more than morbid fascination.

      The only way to significantly reduce the risk is to not drive.

      It is not the only way. Obeying traffic laws significantly reduces the risk. I think you mean that the only way to eliminate the risk is not to drive. But it is an irrelevant observation. People generally have to drive in order to work, shop and have a normal life in the suburbs so they can only aim to reduce their risk.

      My point is that no one simply looks at the risk side of the equation. They also look at the rewards, or lack thereof, as well.

      You don't see "HOLY SHIT! SOMEONE DIED IN A CAR ACCIDENT! SHUT DOWN THE HIGHWAYS!".

      Of course, you saw exactly this reaction when the planes were hijacked on 9/11. All airplanes in North America were grounded. There is evidence that this reaction prevented further hijackings. Precisely calibrating one's response is impossible when the size of the threat is unknown and the potential consequences are large. Similarly, with the anthrax threat, the prudent thing to do is assume the worst until more information is available.

    8. Re:How crazy is this? by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      I think it would be safe to say that risk of contracting anthrax from your mail was negligible, and is now larger than it was. What the public doesn't know is how much larger that risk is now; that depends on how many mad anthrax-spreaders there are out there, and how skillful/clever/evil they are. Given that, I think a certain amount of concern is reasonable.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    9. Re:How crazy is this? by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      you (personally) shouldn't worry about anthrax until the danger to your demographic is non-negligable

      At the point that the danger is non-negligible, it is a bit late to start worrying. The question is whether there is reasonable chance of it becoming non-negligible. There is at least the same chance of it becoming non-negligible as there is of 4 planes being hijacked and crashed into major buildings. It's prudent to start worrying is now. If the threat fails to materialize, you can laugh about it years from now.

      it would take far more than four planes to bring the risk up to levels for driving

      True enough but is the implication that the additional money being spent on airline security might be better spent on improving automobile safety? Would the FBI be more usefully employed in tracking down drunk drivers than terrorists? After all, a fifteen per cent reduction in automobile fatalities would about equal the number of victims of terrorism.

      There's often a temporary drop in airline travel after a major accident and one can presume that the larger the accident, the larger the drop. Airline passenger volumes will probably return to previous levels as the images of 9/11 begin to fade because terrorism didn't reduce the need to fly.

      However, while the images are still fresh, people can be forgiven for reacting in fear. They're not like soldiers or firemen who are trained to run toward disaster rather than recoil.

      In fact, if terrorist incidents continue, you can expect travelers to become inured. The incidents will have a briefer effect on passenger volumes. People's perception of the risk of air travel will be brought closer into line with reality. It's a small, but real victory.

    10. Re:How crazy is this? by markmoss · · Score: 2

      The idea that one should increase one's risk of dying for the benefit of airline industry or the economy in general is surely one of the least helpful suggestion

      You _really_ missed the point. What increases your chance of dying is when you go into a panic about a few hijackings or plane crashes and drive instead.

    11. Re:How crazy is this? by fwoomer · · Score: 1

      except that you forgot to mention that dying because of overindulgance in a Big Mac is a lot more fun than dying due to exposure to anthrax.

      And it takes a lot longer. 8oI

      -- My sore attempt at humor.

    12. Re:How crazy is this? by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      What increases your chance of dying is when you go into a panic about a few hijackings or plane crashes and drive instead.

      Most airline passengers' reactions to the events of 9/11 are not accurately described as either kneejerk reactions or as panic. If they could be articulated, they would probably be something to the effect that they had seriously underestimated the risk of air travel and now had no way of estimating the true risk.

      It is reasonable for people to accept a known risk, such as driving, over an unknown risk when the unknown risk is potentially large. To simply assert that the unknown risk is actually low, as the previous post did, when in fact no one knows with certainty what the true risk is would fail to reassure a prudent traveler.

      The fact that those in the best position to know the risk shut down all airline travel for a while and did not reopen Reagan International until much later suggest that the risk is still unknown and potentially large.

      Under these circumstance, people who accept the known risk of driving over the unknown risk of flying have a reasonable case.

      One might say with the hindsight of a month that the risk of further hijackings appears lower than it did immediately after 9/11. However, the FBI is still issuing warnings of unspecified attacks, which does not raise one's confidence that anyone knowns the true risk except the terrorists.

    13. Re:How crazy is this? by prizog · · Score: 2

      "I think you mean that the only way to eliminate the risk is not to drive"

      No. Pedestrians get hit and killed by cars all the time.

    14. Re:How crazy is this? by markmoss · · Score: 2

      The risk that caused the shutdown of airports wasn't to travellers, but to people in large buildings on the ground... I don't have statistics right handy, but I suspect that even on 9/11 there were more people killed on the roads than the few hundred killed _in_ airplanes. (Lots more were killed _by_ airplanes, but that's a risk you take by being on the ground, not by flying.) Grounding the planes until they could be sure no more would be flying into the great big obvious targets America has provided was rational; driving instead of riding after they went back into service is NOT. (OK, there are many cases where all that extra security means you can get there faster by ground -- but it's still riskier by far.)

      Not to mention that the airplanes could be a lot safer if the gov't and media hadn't spent decades training Americans not to resist criminals, even when their little bitty knives barely qualify as weapons. If the passengers had just rushed the hijackers right at the start, chances are the only ones dead would have been the hijackers...

    15. Re:How crazy is this? by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      I suspect that even on 9/11 there were more people killed on the roads than the few hundred killed _in_ airplanes.

      If 41,000 people a year are killed in auto accidents, then about 110 people a day are killed, distributed over a much larger number of passenger miles than flying. I believe this figure suggests that on 9/11 the risk from flying was about 4 times greater than driving before allowing for deaths per passenger mile.

      The statistical approach used in your argument would conclude that as the days go by and there are no further hijackings, air travel appears to become safer because the number of passenger deaths remain constant while the number of passenger miles become larger.

      In fact, if the terrorist threat remains constant or increases, the risk is the same or greater.

      ...driving instead of riding after they went back into service is NOT

      Bear in mind that the same people that were assuring people that air travel was safe after 9/11 were the ones assuring them it was safe before 9/11. They had no way of knowing for sure for two reasons:
      1) the additional airport security measure were of unknown effectiveness and
      2) the size of the remaining terrorist threat was unknown.

      If the passengers had just rushed the hijackers right at the start...

      Once again, this approach presumes that the level of risk was known. In the past, hijackings have generally ended peacefully while attacking a violent hijacker was clearly perilous.

      The success of the hijackers depended in part on people thinking that their level of risk was lower than it actually was. Using pre-9/11 statistics to guide our current decisions is a dubious proposition. I'm betting that nearly everyone is adjusting their risk/reward ratios, including the terrorists.

    16. Re:How crazy is this? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      But, if the number of people who die from eating big macs jumped the same percentage from last year to this year, was the same as anthrax victims, don't you think the media would grossly overstate the dangers of big macs?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  38. Killing Snail Mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woah! Whoever thought of it, that's a damn smart way to finally get congresspeople to listen to the emails we've been sending to them. :>

  39. Mail beats Email by maggard · · Score: 5, Informative
    There a couple of serious impediments to abolishing mail.

    1. Universal penetration. Everyone in the USA has a postal address. Park benches are legitimate delivery addresses (yes - tested in court.) Only a fraction of the population has email or will likely have such in the near future.
    2. Universal transmission. I can send a postal letter around the world and assume that the recipient will be able to recieve it. From major world capitols to off-the-map slums postal service has a reasonably good tradition of getting through. Email again requires that the recipient haave the same or some alternative last-mile system - not at all typical.
    3. There are no good address-lookup or general-delivery mechanisms for email. If I want to contact Somebody at BigCorp I can look up BigCorp's address and send a letter to Somebody there, it'll generally get manually routed properly. If I know the town Somebody lives in I can often simply look them up in a ubiquitious phonebook or online and assuming they're listed and have a sufficiently unique name I've got their address. There are some services that attempt to provide this for email but they're mostly useless.
    4. There's a large body of law concerning the privacy of letters, the delivery of such, etc. This is NOT the case for email. Frankly I trust the folks of the USPS to transport my mail securely & reliably far more then I do the monkeys at my ISP and the servers between me & my email's destination.
    5. While there are encryption and authenticaion mechanisms for email they're about useless as far as the general population or even most businesses are concerned. Postal mail has no authentication but it does generally get delivered to the right place securely.
    6. Most postal addresses are good for both letters & package deliveries, neither of which is true for email.
    7. Postal mail is free to recieve and only costs the sender some change. Email requires either a computer system and ISP or access to a public facility offering this.
    8. Courts don't recognize email as a delivery mechanism and certianly not for material that must be signed for.

      Frankly with 1 case of transmission of anthrax by postal mail I think the whole topic is foolish and a sad attempt by a columnist to get some attention.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    1. Re:Mail beats Email by vanguard · · Score: 1

      Not one case, two cases. I'm with you, snal mail isn't going anywhere. If it does lighten up it won't be because of Anthrax. However, I expect more the number of attacks will go above two.

      --
      That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
    2. Re:Mail beats Email by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Postal mail has no authentication

      Ehhh... not entirely true. While there is no mechanism that I know of to authenticate the sender, you can request a certificate of mailing to authenticate that the letter has been sent, as well as using various methods of confirming both receipt and the identity of the receiver.

    3. Re:Mail beats Email by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      Lets see-- just over 10 people per day die in automobile crashes... After a concerted effort, 1 man dies of Anthrax and several are treated...

      These terrorists are playing on irrational fears.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    4. Re:Mail beats Email by vanguard · · Score: 1

      Lets see-- just over 10 people per day die in automobile crashes... After a concerted effort, 1 man dies of Anthrax and several are treated...

      These terrorists are playing on irrational fears.


      I agree with you. However, the tone of your post (let's see) implies that you are proving me wrong. Is that what you're doing? If so, did you read my post?

      --
      That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
    5. Re:Mail beats Email by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Not trying to prove you wrong. Sorry if you took offence...

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    6. Re:Mail beats Email by haggar · · Score: 1

      In general, I agree. However, I'd like to mention that a friend of my wife, working as an expat in Egypt, never received the great majority of the letters sent from Europe or USA.

      --
      Sigged!
    7. Re:Mail beats Email by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      Universal penetration. Everyone in the USA has a postal address. Park benches are legitimate delivery addresses (yes - tested in court.) Only a fraction of the population has email or will likely have such in the near future.

      Yeah, but nowadays park benches have Internet access too!

    8. Re:Mail beats Email by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2

      On #8, that is true in the US, but not necessarily elsewhere - in Canada, for example, the courts have established the equivalence of digital signatures on email to physical signatures (I know the team that made the Candian Post Office's web delivery system).

    9. Re:Mail beats Email by maggard · · Score: 2
      No, not true in Canada either. I can't send an email to some aol.ca user and tell the court "They've been served."

      Digital signatures have been legally supported in both the USA & Canada but they've nothing to do with delivery.

      --
      I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    10. Re:Mail beats Email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't send an email to some aol.ca user and tell the court "They've been served."

      Neither can you just drop it in the mail - you have to have registered mail to 'serve someone'.

    11. Re:Mail beats Email by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

      RE: Universal penetration. Everyone in the USA has a postal address.
      In many countries, the likelyhood that your mail will be opened, read, and converted to cash if possible is very high. On the other hand, I have reliably received Email in Egypt, Ukraine, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, etc . . .

      RE: Universal transmission. I can send a postal letter around the world and assume that the recipient will be able to recieve it.

      The software to translate Email is ubiquitous - especially in non-English countries - thus Email is most readily converted to the local language.

      RE: Frankly I trust the folks of the USPS to transport my mail securely & reliably far more then I do the monkeys at my ISP and the servers between me & my email's destination.

      True only in western countries.

      RE: Most postal addresses are good for both letters & package deliveries, neither of which is true for email.

      Which implies an inverse risk - To recieve Snail Mail you have to expose your physical address. What would be cool is a private reverse lookup which would allow delivery companies to deliver to email addresses. Once FedEx knows your address, anyone can send packages to Somebody@aol.com without knowing where you live.

      RE: Postal mail is free to recieve and only costs the sender some change. Email requires either a computer system and ISP or access to a public facility offering this.

      The cost of mail goes up with distance - sending mail halfway around the world carries no additional costs.

      RE: Courts don't recognize email as a delivery mechanism and certianly not for material that must be signed for.

      This is a technical problem which could be solved with technology. We know how to accomplish validation, but we need agreement on standards and protocals. This would be a useful role of government.

    12. Re:Mail beats Email by prizog · · Score: 2

      Lets see-- just over 10 people per day die in automobile crashes..

      Um, over 100 people a day die in car crashes, in the US alone.

      Source:
      http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

    13. Re:Mail beats Email by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2

      Your point is irrelevant to the facts. The fact is that a digitally signed document is equivalent to one delivered via physical mail and returned signed. You give an example where the relevant issue is proving that a document was received (i.e. delivered by registered mail). I do not know that this level of delivery service has a legally recognized electronic equivalent, but email appears to be recognizable as a legal equivalent to mail delivery in Canada, as it can be used in the same way mail is with supporting technologies. Contracts that require "notification in writing" and delivery to physical addresses may not yet be fulfillable by email delivery, but that's a point of contract law, not of the government giving legal status to mail itself.

  40. Until someone learns to...... by mcknation · · Score: 1

    Transmit Anthrax via modem...

    But think about it...they found on that guys keyboard!

    Mck

    1. Re:Until someone learns to...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I belive he used broadband. Media centers are usually
      that modern nowdays.

  41. What does metal music have to do with this? by jmauro · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean first, metal music was forcing kids to kill themselves, then metal music was forcing kids to kill their parents. Then, Tipper Gore thought metal music was destroying America. Now, Anthrax is killing the USPS? Who'd of thought. I always thought the RIAA wanted to prevent music transfered over the internet. Now others want Anthrax transmitted over email. How weird.

    In other news, Anthrax is going to change it's name to "Basket Full Of Puppies"

    1. Re:What does metal music have to do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puns are the lowest form of humour.

    2. Re:What does metal music have to do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puns are the lowest form of humour.

      That's what makes them so profound. Mindfully walking and breathing are the lowest forms of human activity, yet they can provide some of the greatest peace and inspiration and awe when you really perform them with awareness. So fuck, yeah, gimme more puns!

    3. Re:What does metal music have to do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point....

    4. Re:What does metal music have to do with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      My favorite quote from that article, : On Monday, his girlfriend's mom went to her doctor and picked up some Cipro, an antibiotic used to treat anthrax. Ian vowed: "I will not die an ironic death."

    5. Re:What does metal music have to do with this? by Kingu · · Score: 1

      Disease
      Disease
      Spreading the disease


      I email my grandma now cause she kept FedExing me Yersinia pestis

  42. Mass-Murder by helinem · · Score: 1

    If mass-murders have not slowed the sale of hand weapons, then anthrax attacks will not slow the usage of paper mail.

  43. Only marginally on topic... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    But I've yet to see a single palestinian troll post on any terrorism story here. What gives, are they actually ashamed of themselves, or just clever enough to know when to be strategically/politically quiet? Frankly, I'm interested in hearing again about how Israeli soldiers are monsters that live only to kill muslims, or how 4000 jews mysteriously were home sick Sept 11. Go on, tell us some more lies that only those with psychiatric conditions could believe. Those stories go so well with ones such as this....

    1. Re:Only marginally on topic... by asrar · · Score: 1
      There's one below: Some Alternative News Regarding The Recent Events

      Though I'm sure yours could then also be labeled as a zionist troll post, but I guess we should just continue to use double standards as we always do.

    2. Re:Only marginally on topic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, what I was waiting for were trolls making allegations of extraterrestrial or occult reasons for the attacks. Haven't any of you sporks read 'Illuminatus!'?

  44. viruses come on both sides! by Cinematique · · Score: 1

    so let me get this straight... people are going to move from snail mail to email because of anthrax? email has virii too. sircam anyone?

    the predicted demise of snail mail is about as silly as saying that people are going to stop using microsoft outlook in droves because we all know how insecure it is. unforuntately, nobody is.

    funk dat.

    1. Re:viruses come on both sides! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Sircam doesn't kill you.
      2) Anthrax is a bacterium, not a virus.
      3) The plural of virus is viruses.

    2. Re:viruses come on both sides! by Cinematique · · Score: 1

      thanks webster.

      by the way... sircam is slated to format computers on the 16th.

      yippee!

      :(

  45. feh. by motherhead · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Insane. A handful of jackasses mail a handful of poison apples and one writer has an epiphany that an America will now forsake using the postal system.

    I send or respond to hundreds of emails a day, as I am sure quite a few of us do, personally I find it is the differences between email and snail mail that make it cornerstone of society.

    Email lets me communicate to someone using electronic representations of words or images. Powerful stuff, certainly powerful enough to conduct business and maintain strong lines of communication with family and friends.

    But snail mail allows my kids, my wife, to create something for me physically and to send it thousands of miles away for me to hold in my hands, if you ever got a perfumed letter from your woman when you have been jonesing for her for weeks, you realize why email is not a final postal solution.

    Never mind that I do 60% of my shopping online and receive parcels in a timely fashion from all four corners of this country and from a couple others. Never mind that if an old acquaintance wants to contact me the odds of him finding my physical address is greater then him stumbling into my email address. Never mind that letters written by pen usually have greater value both in terms of the thought that went into them and to the appreciation of the reader.

    Yeah junk mail sucks ass and needs to be addressed and destroyed. I am not saying snail mail is not silly with flaws. What I am saying is this is horseshit. We lived through the unibomber and if you are old enough you might remember that in the early seventies mail-bombs were flying around in a near epidemic. Unibomber-boy (teddy K) did not invent it. And hey look, the problem is so bad most of the kids on slash dot won't have a clue about it.

    Man when bored journalists with deadlines write shitty pieces I don't get upset, I know a job is a job. But responding/reacting to it is just plain stupid.

    1. Re:feh. by rlowe69 · · Score: 2

      Man when bored journalists with deadlines write shitty pieces I don't get upset, I know a job is a job. But responding/reacting to it is just plain stupid.

      Don't you find this just a little ironical? ;)

      --
      ----- rL
    2. Re:feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have been waiting to hear the other shoe to drop on that, yes, funny. should i had tried to explain that my post was reaction to the reaction in question, i would have been dealing with so many layers of abstraction that we would have a thought i was insane. yes, irony.

  46. Isn't snail mail already dead? by mashy · · Score: 1

    At least as a means of written communication, honestly within the last several years when have you actually sent someone a message via postal mail? Today everyone has a telephone and quick messages are probably either given over it or by email. It didn't take people long to realize how ineffective it is to communicate with your average person when you have to wait days or even weeks before they even read what you sent them.Email is already the cost effective way (for those who already have computers/internet service of course) to send lengthy messages quickly, but until they find a way to scan and encode physical items into an email attachment, snail mail is still going to be the way to send packages, which unfortunately is a convenient ways to send these hazardous items.

    1. Re:Isn't snail mail already dead? by firewort · · Score: 2

      A nice thought, but my University will only accept submissions for my classwork on paper. I'm in the States, they're in England, so I must print and pay Airbone Express to handle them.

      I have a script that I'm collaborating on with a person cross-country- he uses a typewriter. We send via-USPS.

      I write and fax my legislators.

      Sending physical pieces of paper may not be cost effective, but it's the only way to satisfy these particular communication needs.

      --

  47. I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by garett_spencley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Okay, I'm very sick of the media and government trying to scare people by making them believe that they are at threat from biological and chemical weapons used by terrorists.

    The fact of the matter is that biological and chemical weapons just aren't practical. They are pretty fucking dangerous, I won't argue that. But they are very impractical as weapons of mass destruction.

    For example, out of the thousands of people in the subway in tokyo where a bunch of wacko's sprayed sarin gas only 12 people were killed. 12 out of thousands. A success? I say no.

    You see, first of all it takes a lot of money and people with very huge educations just to produce the stuff. Then it is incredibly hard and dangerous to transport it. You run the risk of infecting yourself.

    But the real reason that we aren't going to see a whole lot of these attacks is because the payload just isn't high enough. After spending millions of dollars to produce the stuff, expending a couple chemists who died in the shitty-ass lab in afghanistan producing it you've only killed a couple people. It's much cheaper, easier and kills a lot more people to just set off a bomb in some building.

    But what about just making people sick? After all there was something like 5500 people pooring into the hospitals in tokyo after the sarin gass. Well what they didn't tell you is that 90% of those people were just people who panicked because they were in the subway that day and wanted to get checked out.

    And don't forget that before that incident the same terrorist group had tried to use anthrax. They sprayed the shit off a building onto a group of civilians and no one was infected by it.

    I read a good article about this written by a phd in microbiology. It contains many more facts that I haven't discussed. You can read it here.

    --
    Garett

    1. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

      "scare people"

      Duh, they're terrorists, they WANT to scare people. They're happier than pigs in mud to find that the media's doing their job for them.

      --
      [o]_O
    2. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by deepstephen · · Score: 1

      For example, out of the thousands of people in the subway in tokyo where a bunch of wacko's sprayed sarin gas only 12 people were killed. 12 out of thousands. A success? I say no.

      I say yes. The objective of terrorists is not to murder, but to inflict terror: that is, to terrorise. You said yourself that 5500 people went to hospital afterwards because they were panicking.

      I'm no expert on the effectiveness of anthrax, but the threat of anthrax is certainly having the desired effect on the American public.

      --

      --
      Karma: Chameleon (you come and go)
    3. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Ten Things You *Need* To Know About Chicken Pox!

    4. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by dgroskind · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fact of the matter is that biological and chemical weapons just aren't practical.

      In fact, there has already been a successful biological attack on American soil. It was carried out in 1984 by a bunch of amateurs, followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who poisoned over 700 people with botulism that they spread on salad bars in Oregon.

      The 9/11 terrorists have shown themselves to be resourceful, if not practical, and ruthless enough to use biological weapons. One could have once argued, with equal logic, that hijacking airliners and crashing them into skyscrapers "was just not practical".

      If news reports are to be believed, the U.S. mail has already proved to be viable way of spreading two different kinds of anthrax. The only constraint of using the mail is the thousands of dollars involved in postage for a mass mailing.

      It's much cheaper, easier and kills a lot more people to just set off a bomb in some building.

      On a cost per thousand basis, there's nothing cheaper than biological weapons, particularly if you use a contageous one like smallpox, as the article you cite suggests at the end. The writer of that article seems to think the fact that the terrorists themselves might be at risk is a deterent.

      Although there may be some technological hurdles, the payoff both in terms of casualties and creating terror is unbeatable.

      If people are complacent about the threat of biological terrorism, the terrorists have already overcome their biggest obstacle.

    5. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by PW2 · · Score: 1

      I'm very sick of the media and government trying to scare people by making them believe that they are at threat from biological and chemical weapons used by terrorists.

      I kind of appreciate the "heads up" that the media provides; it may keep some people from having a really bad day;

      people in general just have to be trained not to be too panicky (like those people who caused artifical gas shortages on 9/11);

      maybe Statistics should become a highschool graduation requirement;

    6. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by archen · · Score: 1

      I'll agree that I think most of this crap is bull, but biological and chemical attacks could be a threat in the right hands. It's apperent to me that this is more a scare tactic than anything. Anthrax is very effective IF you get it, but it's actually pretty hard to spread. Whoever is doing this isn't really intent on killing people so much as spreading paranoia and fear. But biological weapons could be effective. Impractical? Mass mail 1000 letters with small pox. Do the math on that one and it's pretty scary.

    7. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by styopa · · Score: 2

      Anthrax may not be all that effective because it is very hard to distribute but that doesn't mean that A) it should be ignored and B) that we should dismiss the potential danger of other biological weapons. If small pox were to be re-introduced in several cities at once, that could have a devistating effect on the population. Everyone after (I believe it is) 1975 are not immunized against it. It is possible that the Taliban may have gotten a former Soviet scientist from some lab in Kazakstan or Uzbekistan who had a vial of the stuff.

      Anyway, the several reports of anthrax have caused quite a panic in Florida. Accoriding to NPR one pharmacy normally only fill 20 perscriptions of the antibiotic that is used to fight anthrax daily, and they have seen that climb to 300! Salon magazine has a decent article about the Anthrax scare.

      --
      Disclamer - Opinion of Person
    8. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by hacker · · Score: 1
      For example, out of the thousands of people in the subway in tokyo where a bunch of wacko's sprayed sarin gas only 12 people were killed. 12 out of thousands. A success? I say no.

      As you probably already know, they had the right concentration, wrong implementation. Their sprayers clogged, because the spore size was too large to go through in a long-term spray.

      I say they had the right idea, wrong design.

    9. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by ckokotay · · Score: 1

      It was not botulism, it was salmonella. That is why no one died. You get sick as shit (I have had it), but life goes on. C. Botulinum can only produce the toxin in the absence of oxygen, which is why it is very difficult to get.....

      --
      It does not matter what you do, it's wrong.
    10. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      The only constraint of using the mail is the thousands of dollars involved in postage for a mass mailing.

      Hey, what if they mailed out millions of free samples of potted pork meat, all infected with botulism? Y'a know, by using pork, they would reduce the risk of accidentally infecting fellow Muslim. And would give the word "spam" a whole new meaning...

    11. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by dazed-n-confused · · Score: 2

      I read a good article about this written by a phd in microbiology. It contains many more facts that I haven't discussed. You can read it here [villagevoice.com].

      The author, George C Smith, has other techy-related achievements more relevant to many Slashdotters than "a phd in microbiology" -- author of The Virus Creation Labs, compiler of The Crypt Newsletter, frequent contributor to the Virus Myths stupidity-debunking site vmyths.com...

      And he's dead funny, too.

      BTW, "virus" throughout the above links refers to our old friend, malicious code, and not some new terror attack. (And anthrax ain't viral).

    12. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by jamzo · · Score: 1

      you should go find out how many people that were disabled permanently... hundreds... just because a few people died it does not mean it's insignificant... and your tone of "only 12" is fucking disgusting... how do you think you'll feel if your loved one was one of "only 12"... how would you feel if you are still in a coma...

    13. Re: I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      Uh? Since when was Sarin measured in spores?

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    14. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by jaapD · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But the real reason that we aren't going to see a whole lot of these attacks is because the payload just isn't high enough. After spending millions of dollars to produce the stuff, expending a couple chemists who died in the shitty-ass lab in afghanistan producing it you've only killed a couple people. It's much cheaper, easier and kills a lot more people to just set off a bomb in some building.
      They can do it cheaper if they make heroin. People would be paying them to get it! The killrate isn't high but when you have your customers hooked they will keep trying to kill themselves.
    15. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      I'm beginning to think that moderators have a duty to mod down posts like this one that may put ideas in the heads of terrorists or raise the level of anxiety in slashdotters who are already unhinged over the loss of their rights.

      For the sake of national security, please be a little more circumspect.

    16. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      It was not botulism, it was salmonella.

      I stand corrected.

      However, I'm glad you mentioned botulism. It has long been on the list of toxins that are easily made and delivered by the lone terrorists.

      The number of malicious hackers in the world suggests that the sneaky mentality that exploits innocent security holes is fairly widespread. One can conceive of bioterrorism being an outlet for this mentality just as hacking is. The bioterrorists might even come up with some of the same justifications for it.

    17. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone had posted on September 10th, "What if a terrorist hijacked an airplane and slammed it into the World Trade Center", and moderators had modded it up, and someone on the plane had read that post, one of the attacks might have been stopped. Information is going to get out one way or another. When everyone has equal information, the "good" usually win (if for no other reason than that "good" usually gets defined by the winners).

    18. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stats... 700 people a day die in NYC on average. The first good cold spell of each winter increases that by several times. Since NYC was shut down after WTC, the death rate went way down. Only time will tell if the WTC disaster will even be a blip on the death stats for the city.

    19. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by garett_spencley · · Score: 2

      whoa there buddy slow down.

      I'm not trying to say that their deaths didn't matter. By "only 12" I mean that if terrorists are trying to kill a whole bunch of people then chemical and biological weapons just aren't what they need.

      Out of thousands there were 12 who died. From a terrorists perspective this would be a failure if their goal was to kill "a whole shit load of people". Just look at the Oklahoma city bombing, and the Sep. 11 attacks. They were much more effective than any biological or chemical attack to date.

      I feel bad for anyone who dies at the hands of someone else. I was not trying to say that because only 12 died that it didn't mean anything as you seemed to have interpreted.

      --
      Garett

    20. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      I'm beginning to think that moderators have a duty to mod down posts like this one that may put ideas in the heads of terrorists

      So you believe that terrorists read slashdot, but have their threshold set at 1?
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    21. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The fact of the matter is that biological and chemical weapons just aren't practical... For example, out of the thousands of people in the subway in tokyo where a bunch of wacko's sprayed sarin gas only 12 people were killed.

      So just because a particular nerve gas attack didn't kill many people, biologocial and chemical weapons aren't a threat? You're a freakin' genius. If they ever poison your city's water supply, I'm sure you'll be fine...

      I read a good article... It contains many more facts that I haven't discussed.

      Don't kid yourself, you didn't "discuss" any facts. You provided three anecdotes off the top of your head, then ranted against "media and government." Could you make some more sweeping generalizations please?

    22. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      The Rajneesh bunch wore red, and they had a band or something, with a drum set, with red drums (bass drum and toms). That drum set is now in my house. My mom bought it at auction or something. I feel so special. :-)

      Ah well, I didn't need that karma anyway. Score: -47 (Off topic)

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    23. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by markmoss · · Score: 2

      Anthrax is one of the easiest biological weapons to produce. There are plenty of purified samples out there -- and in 3rd world countries, you can still find infected sheep herds. Then, it's a bacterium, so it's not too hard to grow it in a culture. This poses a high risk of infecting yourself, but there are vaccines. If the vaccine isn't perfect, you are still much safer working in an anthrax lab than driving around with a truckload of explosives or trying to hijack an airplane...

      It gets a little harder once you have grown tubs full of anthrax culture. You've got to get the bacteria to form spores, isolate the spores, form them into a very fine powder (so it will go into the lungs rather than getting filtered out by the nose), and stabilize the powder so it doesn't clump up before it is released. Apparently the terrorists didn't get one of the last two steps right -- I think 4 letters, just 1 where the powder became airborne at all, and only 1 lung infection. (Lung infections are fatal unless you start massive antibiotic injections _before_ symptoms appear; other infections are generally treatable.) But this is only their first try.

      Finally, you've got to deliver the stuff. Letters loaded with white, soapy powder aren't going to work anymore. From here on, a half hour after opening anything suspicious, people are going to be in the hospital getting tests and shots. But how about dressing up like a furnace repairman, filling a toolbox with powdered spores, and dumping it into the air ducting?

    24. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by TheMidget · · Score: 1
      I'm beginning to think that moderators have a duty to mod down posts like this one that may put ideas in the heads of terrorists or raise the level of anxiety in slashdotters who are already unhinged over the loss of their rights.

      For the sake of national security, please be a little more circumspect.

      Ya, and you truly believe that in today's climate of anxiety, anybody would be foolish enough to eat any foodstuff he received in the mail in such a way?

    25. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by armb · · Score: 1

      > And don't forget that before that incident the same terrorist group had tried to use anthrax. They sprayed the shit off a building onto a group of civilians and no one was infected by it.

      Possibly only because of the strain they were using.
      http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/bioterrori sm /bioterrorism.jsp?id=23060900
      "But now scientists at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff have analysed the fluid sample and found it contains plenty of healthy anthrax bacilli. DNA analysis shows they belong to the Sterne strain, which is used in live anthrax vaccines for animals. Sterne anthrax lacks a fragment of DNA necessary for the bacteria to cause disease, and is easily purchased in the vaccine form."

      --
      rant
    26. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      you truly believe that in today's climate of anxiety, anybody would be foolish enough to eat any foodstuff he received in the mail in such a way?

      No, I was joking as I assumed you were.

      Your clever reference to spam in your original post clearly indicated that it was a joke and not an earnest attempt at making a helpful suggestion for terrorists, if anyone had any doubt. Similarly, there was a secondary suggestion in my comment that the psychological stability of slashdot readers required them to be protected from your comment. This suggestion was so obviously an exaggeration that it was supposed to indicate the rest of my comment was not be taken seriously.

      Given the fact that your comment was clearly a joke, my comment that it should be modded down as a threat to national security could be seen as funny because I was further exaggerating the absurd humour in your suggestion.

      So, it was a failed joke but still just a joke. However, I still think that the idea that slashdot moderators might have a role to play in national security has some humourous potential. I'll have to work on it.

      The deadpan observation by FrizzleFry that a terrorist could defeat my suggestion by setting their threshold lower than +1 was also funny but I can't tell if he is joking.

    27. Re:I'm sick of this anthrax bullshit..... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      The thousands of people Sadium gased would probably disagree with you, but there dead.

      Anthrax take some knowledge in order to make it a threat to humans, specificaly you have to get the spore size correct.
      The incident where it was sprayed was ineffective due to the spore size. Had it been correct, 1000's would have died.
      IT is cheap to create anthrax. Somebody knowing what to do could create a sizeable amount for a few thousand dollars.

      If you knew about some of the stuff the US produces, you would relize that there great weapons of mass killings.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  48. Sweet, but not the total solution by skinney · · Score: 1

    It's about time that more people start using email as a primary form of written communication. But remember that not everyone out there has access to a computer with an internet connection or a wireless PDA to send mail at anytime. Don't forget about bill paying either, there are also a lot of people who are afriad to use their credit cards on-line. Unfounded as these un-truths about the internet are, they still exist. So in my opinion, were on our way to having email being the primary form of communication, but it will take a lot longer and more than the Anthrax scare to get people to switch for good.

    ~Shane

  49. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >(barring courier services) is by mail. To say that the USPS is dead
    >because no one will want to mail stuff is not only premature and
    >unrealistic, but also quite sensationalistic. In most cases, this one
    >especially you can tell when someone is making stuff up to make the
    >headlines rather than writing stuff that actually makes good sense.
    >Having read this article, it makes very little sense at all. As much
    >as I use computers/email, I for one would be majorly pissed if one day
    >I found mail service was no longer there.
    >People say time and time again the mail is dead. But just look ... its
    >still there and doesn't show any sign of disappearing.
    >
    >
    In a real crisis, the e-mail system have proven time and time again to be pretty much worthless. Try sending E-mail to an adress at the former Twin Towers. Opps, you can't,while "snailmail" sent to those same addresses are being held for people at the various post offices. In other words, in a real crisis a physical location where you can actually pick up your mail beats a non-existant virual one.

  50. the most important question is.. by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 2

    What does Anthrax (the band) have to say about all this? And even more importantly, when is somebody going to sue them for mental distress after seeing their name?

    (Just saw on their web site they are actually still touring! Yeesh!)

    1. Re:the most important question is.. by vanguard · · Score: 1

      You haven't seen this?

      They said their name is "not so cool".

      --
      That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
  51. What about the Unabomber? by tiny69 · · Score: 1

    The scare caused by the Unabomber didn't kill snail mail or the sending of packages. Neither will this.

    --
    Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
    1. Re:What about the Unabomber? by LinuxHam · · Score: 2

      More people have received attempted anthrax infections in weeks than the unabomber hit in 10 years. And this is a general public thing.. not just Computer Science professors.

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    2. Re:What about the Unabomber? by Andux · · Score: 1
      And this is a general public thing.. not just Computer Science professors.

      This isn't a general public thing, either. The terrorists are only sending the spores to people in large corporations or media organizations. They don't want to blanket the country. They probably can't even afford to make that much anthrax. All they're trying to do is scare us into submission with a few strategic, highly visible strikes. They're letting the media do all the work for them, with little or no actual risk to the public.

      --
      (Do not sign anything.) -- Fell, Planescape: Torment
  52. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by cuyler · · Score: 1

    Granted I'm not an American citizen so I can't say how fast the USPS is but personally I find that it's not that expensive to send things via courier and much quicker. The business that I work for sends most of its mail via a courier service or internally.

    Anything that needs to get signed or where a hardcopy is needed (such as the yearly benefit summary) is sent either by the internal mail system or through a courier service. All other notices are done via e-mail. The only thing that I can think of that the company still uses snail mail for is if you don't want your paystub delivered at work.

    I don't think that these anthrax cases are going to causes snail mail to die out but I think that slowly a government run mail system may be replaced by a company own service (such as FedEx).

    Just a thought.

    - Cuyler

  53. Another 'fine' article from MSNBC by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    It can't just be me that noticed that MSNBC's correspondents, and thus their articles, are generally associated with crack smoking. This article is no exception. Though I do think that snailmail will die eventually, it's going to require that a couple generations die off first. People, especially old people, like physical mail too much, and there's too many of 'em who won't use a computer.

    So basically, until Generation X (and later) are the only ones alive, snailmail will remain alive and well. After that point, we have a chance to stop the murderous wholesale slaughter of trees, basically amounting to genocide against various plant species. Yeah, I know, I'm a tree hugger, but it seems ridiculous to me that trees die so that people can get catalogs. If it were cut down to only private correspondence, it wouldn't be so bad.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Another 'fine' article from MSNBC by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      What are you implying? That they sniffed the powder thinking it was a free sample of coke?

  54. Printed Media vs E-books and Email by CrystalCut · · Score: 1

    While I have used and love electronic mail since the advent of BBS's and the Internet, nothing can every satisfy the comfortable feeling of curling up in a big comfy chair, compelte with a warm drink, a hot fire, and a big hardback novel. Or even that Victoria's Secret Christmas special.

    My fear that the recent terrorist activity, along with printed media already moving towards an electronic format will force this issue more rapidly then we all might wish, is valid. But I also believe that people will never forget the satisfaction of the printed medium, even if eventually it cost's more to produce, market and receive.

    After all, it's pretty tough to sneak a laptop into the bathroom to view http://www.victoriassecret.com, and much easier to stuff their catalog into your bathrobe.

  55. your reps are all spammed out by Alien54 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    At least that would mean that our representatives in government might start actually reading email.

    uh, no.

    Simply put the reps are all spammed out. Every single interest group in the country country can send thousands of email to a rep, complete with slightly varied names and subject lines, and content. It is a trivial programing problem to generate sentences and paragraphs out of a database with calibration for education level and other demographics. Any programmer competent in databases could set something like this up.

    So the only way reps can verify that the input is legit is if it is postmarked from their district, hand written, etc.

    You think you get Junk Mail? multiply what you get by a factor of a thousand or two for snail mail, especially if you live in an important district.

    So the odds of them actually reading email are slim and none. Think of them being under a continous DDOS attack for the past 5+ years, if not more. They probably pick out one out of every 100 or 200 or so at random, and use that as a sample of what they get

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:your reps are all spammed out by aka-ed · · Score: 1

      If our reps were interested in filtering out the spam, they could.
      Off the top of my head: I'd create a registry for my constituents; register your IP, and then our webforms will work for you. Don't register, or abuse the system, and you're outta there. For people without a dedicated IP, you could assign logins, or use other methods to require responsible use of email.

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    2. Re:your reps are all spammed out by Alien54 · · Score: 2
      Unfortunately, one solution warks in the direction of a US Government Digital Passport (not the MS solution) where the rep or senator only accepts emails from constituents, from his list of constituent ID numbers. Processed similar to a credit card.

      The problem all along is here we are with a solution the regulates the law abiding people, because some jerks want to abuse the system.

      This goes back to my idea of a spam licensing system, so that the pressure is put on the spammers, not the decent folk.

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    3. Re:your reps are all spammed out by SirGeek · · Score: 1

      If they could only respond to constituents then they wouldn't be able to accept "contributions" (translation legal bribes) from corporations outside their home districts.

      True ?

  56. Snailmail is dying? Sounds kinda like *BSD... n/m. by Scoria · · Score: 2

    Snailmail is in no way "dying." E-mail doesn't have a reliable method of authentication (unless you count packages such as PGP and GPG, which almost nobody utilizes), so that makes it pretty much impossible to convert its legal equivalency to that of snailmail's.

    Sorry. Please stop with the "Snailmail is dying" trolls. ;)

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  57. What would it cost ... by wytcld · · Score: 1

    to send a standard-sized envelope by junk mail to every house and business in America? Either we outlaw this threat, or we're likely to see a lot more notices on street poles promising ...

    Make money at home stuffing envelopes!

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  58. In Other News... by dafoomie · · Score: 1

    In other news, it is now illegal to seal an envelope, and all mail sent in the U.S. is now subject to be checked for illegal substances, read, and censored. Tom Ashcroft: "This is necessary to prevent terrorism to protect our children. If we can arbitrarily tap phones and intercept digital communications, it stands to reason that we can read 'snail mail' too." Seems silly doesn't it? The DMCA seemed silly too until it passed. We seriously have to start classifying Email like snail-mail, illegal to open, read, and the cops aren't supposed to intercept/read it.

  59. Stop flying too? by kenneth_martens · · Score: 1

    Email will replace snail mail when buses and trains replace flying.

    It's not going to happen. Email is good for many things, such as personal communication, but it is not good for anything official. I can send a casual letter to my friends with email, but I can't sign a contract and send it back by email. Bits and bytes on a computer are great for transmitting information, but too often legal reasons demand you have something on paper.

    1. Re:Stop flying too? by klmth · · Score: 1

      Bits and bytes on a computer are great for transmitting information, but too often legal reasons demand you have something on paper.

      These laws can be changed. Basically, the division shouldn't be between "legal" and "casual".
      There is no reason not to send information electronically, other than the artificial barriers that will change. Information is well suited for transmission via electronic medium, since it's by definition something you can't touch.

      Products and supplies on the other hand, are solid structures, that are impossible to send electronically.

      Nicholas Negroponte drew this distinction about six years ago, when he talked about "Bits and Atoms". "Bits", that is, all information and media (movies and music included) should be transferred electronically, since it can be stored electronically.
      "Atoms", on the other hand, can't be transferred electronically, and therefore shouldn't.

      Snail-mail letters should die. They are pure text and pictures, pure information.
      Snail-mail packages will live, since there is nothing to replace them with.

  60. Gives new meaning... by twistah · · Score: 1

    This gives a new meaning to:

    a) Mail virus
    b) "Don't open that attachment, you might get a virus"

  61. It's a conspiracy!!! by UnAmericanPunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, let's see, now that congress is passing all these laws that make it ok for the government to read everyone's e-mail (carnivore) it really makes you think. Anthrax isn't that easy to come by from what I've heard (even though it does occur naturally), but government labs seem to have quite a bit of it. Considering all the rights people are giving up already we might as well just add this to the list. Seriously, this kinda stuff scares me more than the terrorists do.

    So when you add everything up, we'll have armed military guards in the street to "keep the peace", we'll have flying video cameras to record our every move, our phone conversations can be tapped, and now they want to force everyone to use e-mail. So it seems that the government will be able to know your every move if they want to.

    It wouldn't be hard to play off a terrorist thing in order to get political power over everyone. Hitler did the same thing. Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it they say, it's just too bad most people didn't learn.

    --
    Question everything that you've accepted without thinking.
    1. Re:It's a conspiracy!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why, pad're, ya keep the ol' Winchester well oiled and the bullets fresh.

    2. Re:It's a conspiracy!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the U.S. Postal service is in this too. They make a lot more money shuffling paper for the patent applications than making a few cents per mail.

  62. The problem is that email is ineffective... by imagineer_bob · · Score: 0, Insightful
    People don't read email.


    If I want to make a serious inquiry or express an opinion to a company, government agency, or politician, I send a letter.


    For even more impact, a Handwritten letter.


    Email, being so cheap and easy to send, carries no impact anymore. I hope that people don't stop reading their mail; a first-class letter remains the most effective way of making yourself heard.

    1. Re:The problem is that email is ineffective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why dont you want to be watched? You doing something EVIL??? YOU EVIL BASTARD

  63. Why is this an issue? by jes94 · · Score: 1

    I have sent snail mail a grand total of three times in the past two years. Two of those were to a state government agency. Snail mail is junk mail until proven legit. All the anthrax stuff (which is statistically insignificant) means is that I wash my hands after I have taken my mail out of the mailbox and thrown it into the trash can.

    1. Re:Why is this an issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, use some decent surgeon gloves to handle your snail mail. You never know wjo or what touched them.

  64. Bah by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    All email will do is replace anthrax spores with ANTHRAX~1.VBS. No, thanks.

    1. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not only Jeremy J. Olson. On the Internet, I go by many other names...

      My most common alter ego is J'raxis 270145. I invented this name for the name of the Artificial Intelligence in my first Marathon scenario, a simple, stupid-looking gigantic, symmetrical mapfile called Neca Unusquisque! (Almost Latin, meaning "Kill everything!"). This map was never released, by the way, so don't go looking for it. At the time, the name was spelled Jeraxis. Later, when I made the multilevel Menkalinan scenario, the name was shortened to J'raxis, to make it look more like the alien language, Pfhoric, from the game. I don't know where the name came from; I was trying to invent a foreign-sounding version of my own name or something.

      With the release of my Marathon 2 J'raxis scenario, Genus J'raxii (Latin, "Birth of J'raxis"), I further added to the explanation of what J'raxis is. In Menkalinan, J'raxis was a mysterious alien A.I. with unknown origins. In Genus J'raxii, I made him an ancient A.I. of the S'pht'Hra, one of the alien species from Marathon. His full designation was J'raxis'O'Mob'Re 270145, which meant practically nothing. The remainder of the name was just random syllables I invented.

      The name J'raxis has also spawned a number of variations. I was dubbed "J'ackass" by a delightful loser named "XxxBIOSxxX" in a post made to the alt.aol-sucks newsgroup (I probably deserved this moniker, of course), and "J'rasshole" by someone I know in real life, Brent Lowell (who because of his poorly-planned email address, blowell at ici.net, I -- and others coincidentally -- have thus dubbed "Blow-a-Goat Blowell").

      I usually email (and posted to Usenet) under the name J'raxis 270145. And yes, the newsgroup alt.jraxis was my creation (so were many others, but that's another story). In IRC, almost exclusively on DALnet, I usually go by the nick J^raxis, or some variation of that, such as Iraxius, J^ackass, J^rasshole, J^raxicon, Raxis, or [iRaX|uS]. IRC nicks can't have apostrophes in them, so I have to use that damned carat instead.

    2. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean ANTHRA~1.VBS you stupid cock gobbling fag, dos filenames can only be 8 characters long

    3. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      good job reading the guy's website, monkey boy.

  65. Damn Anthrax! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    First they kill metal, now they're killing the mail.

    When will the madness stop?

  66. Forms of snail Mail that won't go away by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    No matter how much you may think mail sent to you on dead trees is outdated, there are reasons the old fashoined mail is not going away for a good long time.
    • Postal mail creates jobs
    • packages - What's the point in all this e-commerce if nobody has anything delivered anymore?
    • Utility Bills - Until some laws are changed you must be provided with an invoice for your purchase and written notification of money owed.
    • Taxes - Like anything done by the government, this ones going to be done the old world way for a long time.
    • Books and periodicals - Some people (myself included) prefer to read anything of great length on paper. Also there is a certain pride in owning a handsome book, admiring the cover as you put it away on a shelf, where you will never touch it again.
    • registered mail - any sort of mail that requires a signature is coming to you the old fashioned way. I know, there's a million technical solutions that would make this work as digital, but your written signature is an important legal tool that people will continue to hit you over the head with forever.

    If the day comes when the government says snail mail is going away, watch out. If you think Uncle Sam has opinions about your computer and the software you run now, wait until you see the regulations that will be imposed on email.

    One thing that may happen as fallout is small business may get out of the private delivery business. The mail is now going to need to be x-rayed and electronically sniffed. Business such as a Mial Box Express or Joe's overnight delivery are not going to have money for the new array of equiptment that they will be told they must own.

    The things that will work to reduce the amount of snail mail - Mail is about to become slower and less reliable. When a pathogen is discovered in the mail, any parcels that may have physically contacted it will need to be destroyed.

    People are now uneasy to open a package or parcel they were not expecting. This will make it less likely for advertisements to continue to be sent via mail. Expect to see an increase in Spam, and a relaxation in laws that control it.

    1. Re:Forms of snail Mail that won't go away by jjsaul · · Score: 1

      All the psychotics have to do is print up fake credit-card offers, pizza coupons and steam-cleaning advertisements. Snail mail is primarily an advertising medium these days, with only 10% of the traffic meaningful or solicited.

    2. Re:Forms of snail Mail that won't go away by Angst+Badger · · Score: 3, Informative
      Books and periodicals - Some people (myself included) prefer to read anything of great length on paper. Also there is a certain pride in owning a handsome book, admiring the cover as you put it away on a shelf, where you will never touch it again.

      Levy's remarks about e-books replacing real books eliminated what little credibility he had failed to squander with the rest of the article. E-books deserved to be ranked with "Internet appliances" and communism as ideas that look dumb on paper (or e-paper) and even dumber in practice.

      • Books are much cheaper than e-books. (When was the last time you had to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars for a machine to read a paper book?)
      • Books are more convenient than e-books.
      • Books are not harmed by electromagnetic fields or temperatures under 451 F.
      • You can even get books wet without rendering them unreadable, though I wouldn't recommend it.
      • Books don't require electricity or recharging.
      • Books are readable from a wide range of angles.
      • You can drop books. You might even drop them on purpose, just for effect.
      • Books formats never become unusably obsolete. The default platform for book-reading has not changed since the human species evolved. Even obsolete formats, e.g. scrolls and clay tablets, are still readable with the latest hardware.
      • Airport security will not ask you to boot your books at the gate, nor will the pilot ask you to turn off your books during takeoff and landing.
      • Best of all, there's no digital rights management BS with respect to books, which means
        • You can check them out from libraries for free.
        • There is no license to agree to and no rights to surrender.
        • You can usually return them without a hassle.
        • No company will ever revoke your ability to read a book because they don't like the way you use it.
        • You can legally criticize books.
        • You can resell books because you actually own them after you pay for them.
        • You can loan books to friends without acquiring a site-license.


      Much of the same applies to mail.
      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    3. Re:Forms of snail Mail that won't go away by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      Every one of your criticisms is valid with respect to what they are currently (trying to) sell under the name "e-book". The concept of an electronic display replacing paper is a good one though, and I think you can expect in the future to see models which address all of those problems. (I'm specifically imagining a solid state device that has a high-quality electronic-paper display, some static RAM, a wireless internet connection, and an HTML renderer)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Forms of snail Mail that won't go away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually up here in Canada we can file our taxes via the internet for the last couple of years and through the touch tone phone for quite sometime.

      IMHO the government know exactly how much you are making anyway and they got their taxes before you ccash in yor pay cheques. Filing income taxes is just a formality.

      My DSL rental automatically deducted from my creditcard with no snail mail bills. For a couple of months they didn't get paid because the creitcard number they got expired and I didn't received a paper bill at all.

  67. Re:Snailmail is dying? Sounds kinda like *BSD... n by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    ...Which the government wants to outlaw (or at neast neuter) now. I dont send any financial information over email, nor will I receive any bills over email (I either get it in hardcopy or I dont get it), and thats certainly not going to change if/when encryption is outlawed.

  68. The USPS cannot die! by mrBoB · · Score: 2, Informative

    Keep in mind folks, the USPS is chartered in the United State Constitution. See Article 1, section 8, "The Congress shall have the power to: ... establish post offices and post roads." Check out usconstituion.net. Now I wouldn't be surprised if the USPS ends up having to purchase fancy devices to look for questionable substances being shipped in letters and packages. Of course any changes made to their business will impact our service. Most obvious being an increase in the price of stamps ;-) I don't think the Supreme Court would find an amendment putting the USPS to sleep being Constitutional. That would be like Congress passing an Amendment that the office of the President of the United States be removed... Just look on the bright side; the USPS is going to _HAVE_ to do _SOMETHING_ to deal with this threat. Hopefully in the near future you won't have to be concerned about being infected with Anthrax through the Postal service. Now ensuring your drinking water is safe is another story ;-) -Bob

    1. Re:The USPS cannot die! by mother_superius · · Score: 1
      How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? When it is ratified, it becomes a part of the constitution. It overwrites parts of the constitution which are outdated by the new amendment.



      Of course, the Supreme Court could interpret it differently and declare it unconstitutional; they can interpret the Constitution however they like. The Constitution says so. (man, does that ever fuck with your head!)

    2. Re:The USPS cannot die! by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      if ("shall have the power to" == "shall be required to") {
      printf ("You are right.");
      }
      else {
      printf ("What are you talking about?");
      }

      // somehow I think that Congress has the power to
      // determine how and when they use their
      // constitutional powers...

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:The USPS cannot die! by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 2
      [...]Now I wouldn't be surprised if the USPS ends up having to purchase fancy devices to look for questionable substances being shipped in letters and packages.[...]

      Maybe they should irridate all snailmail with gamma rays...

      Of course, you'd have to slap that "irridated food" label on all fruitcakes mailed at Christmastime.

      I think. Do Christmas fruitcakes count as food? Oh well, most deserve some kind of warning label anyway.

    4. Re:The USPS cannot die! by mrBoB · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do you recall the 18th amendment? Regarding prohibition, liquor manufacture and sale is outlawed. Subsequently repealed with the 21st amendment. For 14 years drinking was illegal by virtue of an _AMENDMENT_ to the _CONSTITUTION_ (i.e. a federal crime!!). That's pretty steep. IMHO, the 18th amendment represents poor judgment on behalf of congress (and those states that ratified it) in that they chose to make alcohol consumption a _federal_ crime. I could understand if a city or state wanted to be dry; they could enact _LOCAL_ laws, like a few cities/counties in this country do, to outlaw sale of alcohol. So my point is that some amendments can be unconstitutional, and thusly need to be repealed.

      Anyhow, I'd hate to see the Postal Service disbanded by any act of this or a future congress by Constitutional amendment. I'm not sure it could happen anyway. How in the world would the IRS get my tax payments? Keep in mind, amendments are intended to be additions to the Constitution. However, when ignorant or illegal changes are made, only by subsequent amendment may they be removed. I don't trust most of our congressmen to have the scruples to properly change the Constitution and that is the only way the USPS could be disbanded. I hope that congress sticks to US Code where they are intellectually capable of making changes. To be honest though folks, we shouldn't even be thinking this way. Everyone is having reactionary feelings and concerns about the attacks. It really is to be expected, however our representatives in Washington have a responsibility to us (civilians, citizens) and to the future of these Great United States. Devaluing the power of the _Constitution_ with ridiculous changes will only do harm to our freedoms. Changing the Constitution during this time of great distress would be a crime against all Americans, past, present and future.

      No changes to the Constitution will change the fact that Al-Qaida and Bin Laden want to kill every American, and more correctly, every non-Muslim. This war _he_ has started against us is because we are the most free peoples on the planet. He has called for Jihad and yet we are called the Crusaders... I have great difficulty dealing with this kind of logic. He is unhappy that Muslims, Christians, Jews and atheists can and do live relatively peacefully in this country. In no other country in the world can this be claimed; certainly not in the Middle East. It is because of this that we must respect and uphold our freedoms, even in this time of terror as proof to the world that we can remain free. -Bob

    5. Re:The USPS cannot die! by unitron · · Score: 2
      An ammendment to the Constitution, once ratified and in force, becomes part of the Constitution, and as such, cannot be unconstitutional. It may conflict with previously in force parts of the Constitution, but that's what ammendments are for, to make changes and additions.

      Of course the example you cite, the 18th Ammendment, is excellent proof that a ratified ammendment isn't necessarily a good or smart ammendment. We in the U.S. are free enough, however, to institute changes in our constitution whether they are good for us or not. (I freely admit that whether or not they are good for us is a matter of opinion and subject to unending debate.)

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    6. Re:The USPS cannot die! by Lyka · · Score: 1

      If you'll look a few lines below that, you'll also see that Congress has the power to "grant letters of marque and reprisal".

      "A letter of marque or letter of reprisal is the means by which a government authorizes a civilian to arm a private ship in order to attack and plunder the merchant ships of an enemy nation during war.", according to Wendy McElroy -- in other words, government-sponsored piracy.

      I notice that we aren't authorizing privateers to attack enemy nations' ships any more.

      Whatever possibility there may be of abolishing the USPS -- and I'll agree that this article was one of the most ludicrous things I've ever read in the mainstream media -- the U.S. Constitution doesn't mandate its continued existence.

  69. yes but... by Cynikal · · Score: 1

    just keep an eye out for anthrax.win32

  70. It's not just one case by vanguard · · Score: 1

    I seen several people say there was only one case of Anthrax sent via mail. It's not one, it's two.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/011013/n13112863_2.html

    BTW, I doubt snail mail is going anywhere.

    --
    That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
    1. Re:It's not just one case by LinuxHam · · Score: 2

      I'm sure you've been caught up by now, but it's actually at least three.. American Media in Florida, NBC News, and Microsoft Licensing in Reno, Nevada.

      I hope the FBI sets up a website much like the "Y2k incidents" page where we can track in real time the reported suspicious events and the results of testing, if any. I'll never forget the one Y2K listing from Texas where, when the lights didn't go out at midnight, some drunk (guy) went out with his shotgun and started shooting out the street lights. Now THAT'S funny!

      --
      Intelligent Life on Earth
    2. Re:It's not just one case by vanguard · · Score: 1

      Ok, I knew of all three but the "experts" haven't linked up the FL case with the NYC and Reno cases. Also, they haven't said, AFAIK, that the FL anthrax arrived via mail.

      That's why I was calling it two. However, I can see why three is correct also.

      --
      That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
  71. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by cruelworld · · Score: 1

    One word:

    AOL CD's.

  72. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, the argument in the article completely ignores the fact that the people who make the decision to send mail and pay for it can't get anthrax from SENDING mail, therefore this scare will not even enter their mind. It's the person on the receiving end that may be worried, but they don't have anything to do with the decition to send mail... they're the receipients.

  73. Uh, I think not by OpenSourceRulez · · Score: 1

    This anthrax scare may kill snail mail letters with the newer tech savy generations, but we will still have those who are computer illiterate still using snail mail. Plus you can't ship T-Shirts, computers, electronic equipment, etc by email. It may hamper the postal system but it won't kill it.

    --
    "Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion. You must first set yourself on fire." -- Fred Shero
  74. Indian partnership to send written email by weaselgrrl · · Score: 1
    Can someone help me, im trying to find out how to send a "written" letter using email?


    Elementary Watson. The site indiatimes.com via a partnership with Overnight Express as USPS is all geared up to have people in america use email to send printed letters to people back in India. Read about it here.

    --
    I spent all of those years as Anonymous Coward and all I got was this lousy number (204976).
  75. But by dachshund · · Score: 1
    Also, you don't mention that anthrax is NOT contagious. You pretty much have to be a target to get it.

    Anthrax is useful as a weapon because it's so damn deliverable. The spores are easy to aerosolize. They live forever on whatever they touch.

    If someone successfully releases a cloud of the stuff in a public place, thousands of people could get Inhalation Anthrax. Wouldn't take contagion to spread.

  76. This is happening.... by MasterOfDisaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mostly in NY, but I know of several places that have told me and others that I know "Dont send us snail-mail. We wont get it. Hard to say exactly what will happen, but this isnt isolated.
    I'm guessing the price of the stamp is going to go through the roof, however

    --
    The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
  77. New meaning... by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

    ... damned mail viruses ...

  78. Re:Some Alternative News Regarding The Recent Even by asrar · · Score: 1
    Haha you forgot one:

    American State Terrorism

    But as the original ISP told the webmaster of the website above: "If you want free speech you can go down to a street corner and shout."

    Also for some really good stuff check out the Chmosky archive at zmag.org

  79. Not the end of snailmail, the end of junkmail by Col.+Panic · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Someone is only going to fear opening a package when they don't know who is sending the letter/package. We will still open letters from family and friends since we recognize the return address. Likewise, when we order things by mail we are expecting them to arrive and can be reasonably sure of their safety.

    I think the columnist may have an argument when it comes to *unsolicited* snail mail. This may have an impact on public figures who regularly receive unsolicited mail from lots of people, but that could be a positive impact. Right now a written letter to one's Congress-critter is considered more effective than email, but maybe this unfortunate situation will make public officials consider email more legitimate now since they might be reluctant to receive "real" mail.

    1. Re:Not the end of snailmail, the end of junkmail by pmz · · Score: 1

      Imagine a world where credit card companies actually take to heart that everything they send me just gets shredded with my other garbage.

      Imagine the resurgence of forests that were destroyed by these credit card companies and their junk-mailing brethren.

      Perhaps the downfall of junk mail is not only a public health benefit but also a general improvement in our society and the environment.

    2. Re:Not the end of snailmail, the end of junkmail by Col.+Panic · · Score: 1
      everything they send me just gets shredded with my other garbage.

      You shred your garbage? Talk about paranoid! j/k

      Seriously tho - I can only dream of such a world ... wouldn't it be nice?

  80. Hey, wait a minute... by thesolo · · Score: 1

    From the article:
    As I was ingesting the information the about the cutaneous rash afflicting Tom Brokow's assistant and workers in white bio-suits testing the New York Times newsroom, my office door opened.

    Isn't that one too many "the"'s??

  81. Paper by Cadre · · Score: 1

    Actually, the wholesale slaughter of trees is not because of the paper industry, it's from the furniture and housing industry.

    Most paper is made from crop trees, they are engineered to create better pulp and planted just like regular crops. Your average tree that you find in natural forests makes really bad paper...

    --
    All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
    1. Re:Paper by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, okay, point taken. I can continue my rant by pointing out that any kind of farming which does not include crop rotation causes soil depletion.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  82. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by Looge+Over+All! · · Score: 0

    And to think that the people defending snail mail are almsot entirely USian, from the country with absolutely the most laughable postal system of any first world country.

    Well, it made me chuckle.

  83. No there won't! by WickedClean · · Score: 1

    There will always be snail mail! How else will we send resumes, packages, birthday and christmas cards, etc.

    Until something is done about spam, email is going to have problems.

    --
    ...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
  84. Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    egg troll is a troll, as can clearly be seen from his posting history. Please moderate him down accordingly.

    1. Re:Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous Coward is a raging homosexual, as can clearly be seen from his enormous asshole. Please suck his cock accordingly.

  85. How come... by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Eight cases of Anthrax could destroy the postal system (when only one person actually suffered any kind of catastrophic system failure from it), and tens of millions of Microsoft systems, causing potentially billions of dollars of damages in lost time, is merely a "system admin problem"?


    Besides, milions more are infected, and tens of people killed, from common diseases passed around the classroom!

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:How come... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, because no one DIES from Microsoft software. And the "billions of dollars" is abject bullshit.

  86. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their email is being held to, in mail spools distributed around the world.

    After the attack, affected businesses had 5 days to switch to using their backup system before they lost any email. Even if they didn't have any backup systems, that's more than enough time to purchase a server, configure it and repoint the MX records.

  87. Penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you mail THIS?? (Whips out penis)

  88. Writing representatives.... by Angron · · Score: 1
    Does this mean we should start sending even MORE snail-mail letters to senators and representatives who don't vote the way we like? ;-)

    -Angron

  89. Here's a question, then .. by skotte · · Score: 0

    In the past, the standard executive model started a promising young employee starting in the mail room, and working up. i don't think too many really start in the mail room, anymore, so this may be a silly question. but if standard mail is left behind, then where would a new young employee start? probably not on the mail server ....

  90. Anthrax Outbreak Spawns Reports of Megadeth, Pante by egg+troll · · Score: 0, Funny

    As stolen from BBSpot.com:

    Palm Beach, FL - The recent alarm over the possible outbreak of the Anthrax virus has Florida residents frantic. Over the past few days, communities such as Palm Beach and Sarasota county have reported several cases of Megadeth, and one Miami Beach resident may even have contracted a case of Pantera.

    The CDC is stockpiling vaccines for these deadly viruses in the event that things become more serious. Terry Lavine, head of the Florida State Board of Music urged residents to stay indoors, tune their radios to easy listening stations and to report any long-haired "metal" types to their local sheriff.

    "I don't want to cause a panic, but I think this attack is intentional and I fear things will get worse before they get better. This could be bigger that Monsters of Metal back in '86. If Danzig decides to go on reunion tour, we may need to call in the National Guard." Lavine said. "Thankfully there haven't been any outbreaks of Metallica since 1991."

    Vicki Cartwright of Cartwright Office Supplies was an eye witness to the reported case of Pantera. Her shocking story paints a frightening picture as she watched a coworker suffer the effects.

    "I was helping a customer in the notebook aisle when all of a sudden I saw Larry thrashing about in the stapler department. I mean, staplers were flying everywhere, his head was swinging wildly back and forth, and I was afraid for my life. Larry's been known to do some weird stuff in the past, but not since they made him assistant night manager."

    Larry (last name withheld until his parents can be located) was rushed to County General where a staff of surgeons set to operate. Luckily for Larry, one of the surgeons was a recovering metal-head who recognized the symptoms.

    "We were able to stabilize Larry, but I don't thing we've seen the end of this disturbing trend. I think this is only the beginning. I just pray to God that the Center for Disease Control is developing a Stryper vaccine, or we all could be at risk."

    --

    C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
  91. Mod parent down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    egg troll is a troll, as can clearly be seen from his previous posts. Please moderate him down accordingly.

  92. Good. by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2

    While I think that's b.s. and we won't be THAT affected by Anthrax. This could be good if it would force lawmakers to get off their lazy butts and pass some decent anti-spam laws.

    Or just pass a law that says it's illegal to forge headers. That would be a start. Then I could handle spam in my own ways.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  93. Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A beowulf cluster of snails....

  94. Junk mail keeps snail mail alive by Black+Acid · · Score: 1

    Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think that a few cases of anthrax are going to kill snail mail. First of all, junk mail is a big business - it essentially keeps snail mail alive. Companies pay millions of dollars to send out bulk mail. E-mail just doesn't have the same respect as snail mail.

    I suspect this will not only increase e-mail usage but especially telephone conversations. Just compare it to what happened after the September 11th attack - the nation-wide telecom network was nearly saturated. If an outbreak does occur, phone communication will most likely be the way loved ones communicate with the victims.

    Just my two cents.

  95. Won't be safe for long... by joshwa · · Score: 2

    TO: Joe User
    FROM: TrendMicro ScanMail Exchange Edition
    RE: Re: Weather Report

    Your attachment, ANTHRAX.DOC.PIF , has been intercepted by the firewall. Please contact your system administrator.

    Please mention ticket number 0682090701ABS3724365.

  96. Re:NEW TROLL COMING ON MONDAY!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool man, Im lookin forward to it, keep up the good work brutha

  97. Yep, right away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...as soon as we all convert our work to "paperless offices".

  98. Why does this sound so familiar? by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

    the very concept of ending regular postal service is akin to ending civilization itself.

    This seems very similar to the fundamental premise of The Postman by David Brin.

    --
    Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
  99. Interesting comments by einhverfr · · Score: 2

    Re; Aum Shinrekio (sp?) the sarin gat attack was actually their tenth attack using chemical and biological agents. It was the only one anybody actually noticed or died from. 10 attempts and 12 deaths. Not very effective.

    But-- the threat is more dangerious than the disease. Would YOU drink the water if someone claimed to have dumped biological agents in it?

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Interesting comments by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2
      Would YOU drink the water if someone claimed to have dumped biological agents in it?

      I do, nearly every day. Massive amounts of biological agents are dumped in our water. Fish make love in it, you know...

  100. Nonsense by Questioning · · Score: 1

    Mails main role is gradualy shifting towards e-mail being the primary medium of text, but with the movement of goods still a function of the post office. It's much easier to ship a bomb or a plague in a box, which in all likelihood is probably how this was spread.

  101. Re:Your Mom... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know how I can contact Rusty? I am in love with him.

  102. Killing mail? What about people? by deebaine · · Score: 2

    I don't mean to sound like a troll or one of the incessant writers of flamebait, but I'm a little disappointed in Slashdot for this one. If this anthrax is an honest attempt at an attack, and it succeeds even in part, a lot more than snail mail is in serious danger.

    I just told a good friend who told me she had flu symptoms to phone the ER and see if she should go in, so I apologize if a dip in snail mail seems a bit on the trivial side at this moment.

    -db

  103. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by OmegaDan · · Score: 3, Interesting
    its a silly supposition that people will stop sending mail ... and this is why:

    You don't *choose* what medium communications *TO* you take. If I get a CC bill in the mail, I mail a check. If I get a phonecall, I return the call. if I get an email I send an email. You can only choose the medium of conversations you initiate :) So the only way sending e-mail instead of snail mail is going to reduce your risk of getting anthrax is if you are the person mailing antrax to people :)

    The only thing that could help would be for potential victims (companies apparently) to declare they only will accept email.

  104. Sheesh by G-funk · · Score: 2, Redundant

    First metallica killed napster, now anthrax is killing the postal service? Damned punk teenagers and their devil music.

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  105. Scaremongering by flegged · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Fact 1: A few people got diagnosed with Anthrax.
    Fact 2: One of them opened a letter.

    And so suddenly it's a worldwide conspiracy by Emmanuel Goldstein^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HUsama Bin Laden and Eastasia^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe Taleban. Who actually believes this shit? You might as well blame CJD on Saddam Hussein or Gulf War syndrome on the CIA. Ermm...

    Fact 3: Noone in the US postal service contracted Anthrax.

    The most likely explanation is that the people who got Anthrax bought some dodgy cocaine. Maybe if the .gov.us (it should NOT EVER BE .gov - the US dosn't run the world (although it tries hard)) used it as propaganda against drugs, then noone would take them. If only they would stop tripping out on their own holier-than-thou attitude, they would stop supplying weaponry to known terrorists. Maybe they'd eliminate the debt they and the world bank are pushing onto most of Africa. Maybe if they'd stop trying to police the rest of the world and cram their 'American Way' down the throat of people who really don't want to have anything to do with America, this whole sorry mess of crap would never have happened.

    I just wish the .gov.us and their bitches would quit their hardon for the US and let everyone get on with lives, without having to listen to their bullshit, being spied on, or having advanced weaponry raining on their heads.

    I am not a troll (braces for a karma plummet). It's just that the US scares me far more than a handful of middle-east extremists who
    1) were given weapons by the US
    2) were never proven to have attacked the US (read the so-called evidence yourself. There is not a single statement which could not have been falsified. Nor which proves Bin Laden ordered the suicide attacks.)
    3) don't have the resources necessary to defend themselves against even one storming by the SAS. And yet are said to have chemical weapons. Right. Let's see those satellite pictures of where Goldstein is hiding. Which one of those caves has the chemical weapons plant?

    Offtopic? Whatever - I'm far more worried about security in email than snail mail. I use GPG, but if the US outlaw it, that will make me a terrorist. Thanks US. I can sleep easier now.

    --

    "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
    1. Re:Scaremongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      troll

    2. Re:Scaremongering by TWR · · Score: 2
      So, genius boy, who attacked the US? Let me guess: you think it was the Israelis, right? Or do you think the entire attack didn't happen and that it was all misinformation?

      I hope the next attack kills someone you love. I'll just say that they were cokeheads who got bad stuff. Or that they aren't actually dead, just faking it.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    3. Re:Scaremongering by Niac · · Score: 1

      So, genius boy, who attacked the US? Let me guess: you think it was the Israelis, right? Or do you think the entire attack didn't happen and that it was all misinformation?

      Perhaps you have a problem with the possibility that it might not be Osama bin Laden? Does it trouble you that the USA could be in error? [And there certainly /IS/ room for error here!]

      I hope the next attack kills someone you love. I'll just say that they were cokeheads who got bad stuff. Or that they aren't actually dead, just faking it.

      Do you really hope for that? Are you sure you want to wish the death of another human being? How fucking cold.

      And again, isn't it possible that it MIGHT have been that? Speculation is one thing, wishing the death of another is quite another.

      You offend me morally. That's hard to do. Congradulations.

      --
      http://gabrielcain.com/
    4. Re:Scaremongering by Niac · · Score: 1

      Err, Congratulations. Fuck.

      --
      http://gabrielcain.com/
    5. Re:Scaremongering by TWR · · Score: 2
      Somehow, morally offending those who side with someone that called a bunch of people intentionally infected with a disease (including one person who was murdered) cokeheads makes me feel good about myself. Writing that somewhere slightly more public than Slashdot would easily be construed as Libel.

      And I think it troubles you that the US could be RIGHT. You (and your political kin) don't like the fact that maybe, just maybe, the US are the good guys, since you've spent so much time and emotional energy convincing yourself that all of Western Civilization (especially the US) is the root of all evil in the world. The fact that these same people enjoy the luxuries and freedoms provided by the society they claim to hate is an irony that is left unexamined by these freethinkers.

      The same people who can concoct the most cocamamie conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence won't believe that Bin Laden and his group are responsible for the terrorist attacks on NYC and DC without a signed confession from Bin Laden and 200 of his closest associates. The evidence released so far is easily grounds for indictment. We've got means, motive, and opportunity. The phone records are facsinating. We've got the guy placing a call to his step-mother the day before, letting her know something big was going down. We've got calls by him and his associates RIGHT AFTER the attacks saying "We hit two of the targets."

      And that's not all. We have his son, interviewed by favorable press in Pakistan, saying that Bin Laden and 300 of his followers went into hiding on the 10th of September, sending most of his family to Pakistan. There are records of bank transactions from known associates of Bin Laden to the people who did the attacks. What more evidence would you want? Video of Bin Laden describing the plan while petting a white cat?

      The real answer is that you and your fellows are cowards. You know who is responsible, but you won't admit it because you're afraid. Rather than face the enemy, you hope that if you hide and pretend he isn't the enemy, he'll go away. He won't. You'll blame the CIA or Israel because, in your heart of hearts, you know they didn't do it, and that they would NEVER commit such an atrocity. They're fake, safe targets.

      No matter how much you and your fellow chickens try to appease Bin Laden, he's going to try to kill you and destroy your society. Luckily, the vast majority of people in the US know what the right thing is to do and cowards like you aren't going to divert us.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    6. Re:Scaremongering by Red+Moose · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Maybe if the .gov.us (it should NOT EVER BE .gov - the US dosn't run the world (although it tries hard))

      But they did invent the goddamn internet and so sort of reserve the right to do whatever they want with it. If you start you're own internet, make it .hippy-commune instead of .gov if that makes you feel better. Any country that connects itself to the net has to accept that they are connected to a network that is not theirs. I'm sure in France the government have some reserved "domain" on Minitel, but like, who gives a shit about what's on that, eh?

      --

      Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better

    7. Re:Scaremongering by flegged · · Score: 1

      No matter how much you and your fellow chickens try to appease Bin Laden, he's going to try to kill you and destroy your society. Luckily, the vast majority of people in the US know what the right thing is to do and cowards like you aren't going to divert us.

      You know, when you say that, you sound just like a certain extremist I know.

      --

      "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
    8. Re:Scaremongering by TWR · · Score: 2
      Barry Goldwater? Winston Churchill? FDR? JFK?

      They all made similar statements when facing similar evils.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    9. Re:Scaremongering by Niac · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a lot of supposed truth. Where did you get it?

      I don't think you have any idea what I'm talking about.

      I suggested the possibility that the USA could be wrong. You call me a coward.

      A coward for considering all possibilities?

      I laugh at your flawed logic.

      Shall we analyse this? I suppose we may.

      Somehow, morally offending those who side with someone that called a bunch of people intentionally infected with a disease (including one person who was murdered) cokeheads makes me feel good about myself. Writing that somewhere slightly more public than Slashdot would easily be construed as Libel.

      Interesting claim. Let us see what you base it on. 1. I never stated that the actions of whomever it was that spread the anthrax was good. On the contrary, I condemn it. Doing harm to anyone is wrong.

      And I think it troubles you that the US could be RIGHT. You (and your political kin) don't like the fact that maybe, just maybe, the US are the good guys, since you've spent so much time and emotional energy convincing yourself that all of Western Civilization (especially the US) is the root of all evil in the world. The fact that these same people enjoy the luxuries and freedoms provided by the society they claim to hate is an irony that is left unexamined by these freethinkers.

      Actually, I hope the US is right. I'd feel a lot less guilty about being a member of a government that attacks other countries if I knew that they were actually within their right to do so!

      he real answer is that you and your fellows are cowards.

      Why are you calling me a coward? Because I consider all possibilities in a situation? Because I'm willing to think something through?

      You know who is responsible, but you won't admit it because you're afraid. Rather than face the enemy, you hope that if you hide and pretend he isn't the enemy, he'll go away. He won't. You'll blame the CIA or Israel because, in your heart of hearts, you know they didn't do it, and that they would NEVER commit such an atrocity. They're fake, safe targets.

      I know who's responsible? How the fuck do I know that? I run a small ISP, and am mostly engrosed in my work. This doesn't sound like someone who knows who does what on the east coast.

      Fact is, I have no proof with regard to who is responsible for these actions. I'd like to know who did this. I'd like to see whoever is responsible for this to rot in prison for the rest of their life.

      I would like to see some price paid for the pain caused on the 11th of September, but you know what? Doing more harm isn't going to pay that price.

      No, all that doing harm does is reduce us to the level of the terrorists - hurting people to secure our agendas. How fucking quaint.

      No matter how much you and your fellow chickens try to appease Bin Laden, he's going to try to kill you and destroy your society. Luckily, the vast majority of people in the US know what the right thing is to do and cowards like you aren't going to divert us.

      I'm not trying to appease anyone. I have no one to appease. I suspect that Osama bin Ladin deserves to rot in prison for some time. I have no way of knowing it, tho. And I'm not going to be so arrogant as to claim to know without hard, unforgable, unmistakable proof.

      Oh, and very big of you to attack me. That certainly secures the validity of your arguments. After all, if I'm a coward, how could what I say have any worth? If I'm a coward, what point is there in reading a word I said? Or for that matter, giving my words weigh by trying to supress them?

      Next time, do without the Ad Hominum. Logical fallacies do not become us, I think.

      --
      http://gabrielcain.com/
    10. Re:Scaremongering by TWR · · Score: 2
      Do you even read what you are responding to?

      Here's the line from the post I replied to:

      The most likely explanation is that the people who got Anthrax bought some dodgy cocaine.

      That asshole called a buch of sick (and one dead) people cokeheads, with zero information other than his own obvious hate for the US. That's libel. You took the asshole's side. What does that make you?

      Doing harm to anyone is wrong.

      Bullshit. There are plenty of people who deserve lots of harm done to them. Putting rapists, murders, and thieves in prison is certainly doing "harm" to them. Many people think it's more "harm" to take away someone's freedom and let them rot than it is to execute them. In your ideal fantasy world, do criminals roam free, lest harm is done to them? Or do people skip around, loving each other and doing no wrong?

      You claim the moral high ground because you spout pacifist nonsense. I say that all it takes for evil to succeed is for the good to do nothing. The US has been doing NOTHING for nearly 10 years in response to attacks by bin Laden. Attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and the embassies in Africa were low-level police investigations. Doing nothing was just encouragment to the killers. Now there are nearly 6,000 people dead in the US and most Americans are awake to the danger. People like you are still in denial, hoping it'll go away. Maybe when you lose someone close to you, you'll drop the faux pacifism.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    11. Re:Scaremongering by flegged · · Score: 1

      The most likely explanation is that the people who got Anthrax bought some dodgy cocaine

      I heard on the news that they got Anthrax from a 'white poweder'. I jumped to a conclusion. My bad. Sorry.

      The US has been doing NOTHING for nearly 10 years in response to attacks by bin Laden

      This is at best innacurate, and at worst, a lie. I'd say it rates as mindless reiteration of propaganda. The US has been doing everything it can to get it's own way, from Vietnam to Russia, Ira[n|q], Serbia, and now Afghanistan. They arm their nations against their enemies, and when they bite the hand that feeds, they act the innocent victim.

      There is, as yet, no evidence on who destroyed the WTC. Nor is there any eveidence on who is mailing Anthrax (although a disgruntled postal worker strings to mind - not an accusation, just a thought). Nor is there any evidence that these events are even related.

      If I were a terrorist, I could do a lot worse than mailing Anthrax to six people who work in television. Considering I could destroy a major landmark without any weaponry and kill thousands, infecting six people with a disease that isn't even very infectious (you have to breathe it or come in contact with it for several hours to get infected) seems a little pointless.

      I don't hate the US. Their government just scares me a helluva lot more than a sicko sending anthrax. Unfortunately, here in Britain, our government does anything the US says. We are living in the 51st state, except we don't get to vote.

      In your ideal fantasy world, do criminals roam free, lest harm is done to them?

      In my ideal world, the evidence would be gathered before declaring war on an unarmed nation. The perptrators would be put before a UN trial. If found guilty, they'd be afforded the maximum punishment available for war crime.

      But people like you are too gung-ho in your bloodlust to let anything like reality get in the way of what your beloved (unelected) son-of-Star-Wars says to do. Believing that your government is not lying to you is the first step to totalitarianism, which the US seems now desperately bent upon (and, like a dog following it's master into a burning building, the UK will do so too).

      Doing nothing was just encouragment to the killers

      Yes, by sitting here doing nothing, I am encouraging someone to kill thousands of people. Great logic.

      You also claim that the death toll makes it alright. What about the millions deaths the US has caused every time it has interefered in the affairs of another nation? In the Gulf, the US killed more British troops than Iraqui.

      Gene Roddenberry was right - arm someone to defend themselves, and they'll only fight back harder.

      --

      "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
    12. Re:Scaremongering by TWR · · Score: 2
      I heard on the news that they got Anthrax from a 'white poweder'. I jumped to a conclusion. My bad. Sorry.

      Shock of all shocks; someone as ignorant as you is ill-informed.

      The US has been doing everything it can to get it's own way, from Vietnam

      So, you think the US invaded Vietnam to get bin Laden? You're stupider than I thought.

      There is, as yet, no evidence on who destroyed the WTC

      Horseshit. There's tons of evidence that's been made public. I cited in an earlier post. To a non-moron, it's a pretty damn good case. Furthermore, the non-public information was good enough to get both the French and the Russians aboard. The French are even promising GROUND TROOPS. The Russians are giving the US maps, and have dropped all objections to the US using bases in the former Soviet Asian republics. Think about that for a minute, pinhead.

      Yes, by sitting here doing nothing, I am encouraging someone to kill thousands of people. Great logic.

      Is there anything you aren't too stupid to twist into nonsense? Doing nothing when you are attacked encourages attacks. Let's try a thought experiment. Say I walk up to you and punch you in the head. You do nothing. Maybe you ask some powerless third party to condemn me. Does this stop me from punching you again? Or does it tell me that you are an easy target?

      Arguing with morons like you is getting annoying. Just admit you're a coward and we can stop this.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

    13. Re:Scaremongering by flegged · · Score: 1

      So, you think the US invaded Vietnam to get bin Laden? You're stupider than I thought.

      I said the US pushes it's weight around all over the world, and cited numerous wars the US has started. And you took it to mean that Vietnam had anything to do with Al Quiada. Who exactly is stupid here?

      good enough to get both the French and the Russians aboard

      And you believe unquestionably that the US is right to bomb the hell out of third-world nation because of this? There are many reasons other countries are getting behind the US.
      1) To appear supportive after the tragedy.
      2) To appear to be doing something against terrorism
      3) Fear that they will be attacked by terrorists
      4) Fear that the US will accuse them of 'harbouring' terorists, and have the shit bombed out of them. Pakistan is the one country which has decided to remain neutral. How long did it take for the media to decide that they were in league with Al Quiada?

      I just reread your original post before replying...

      So, genius boy, who attacked the US? Let me guess: you think it was the Israelis, right?

      So let me get this right. I suggested that there was not enough evidence (fingerprints, dna, video tapes - ie real evidence not a mile long text) for any court since the 16th century to take seriously. And you accuse me of being racist. You accuse me of thinking "the Israelis" attacked the US. Now why would I think that? Could it be that you can only conceive that only middle-eastern countries would want to attack the US? It's either the Afghans or the Israelis. No possibility of any other group, even within the US itself (remember Oklahoma). It must be them. Idiot.

      Your thought experiment proves one thing : that you believe that violence solves everything.

      --

      "I think he was truly surprised at how little I cared about how big a market the Mac had" - Linus on Jobs
    14. Re:Scaremongering by TWR · · Score: 2
      I said the US pushes it's weight around all over the world, and cited numerous wars the US has started. And you took it to mean that Vietnam had anything to do with Al Quiada. Who exactly is stupid here?

      I had said that the US had done nothing for ten years in response to attacks from bin Laden's groups. You then cited Vietnam in response. Either you have no sense of history, or you cannot read. Which is it?

      It's either the Afghans or the Israelis.

      Pay attention, ill-informed boy. The rumor in the Middle East is that the Mossad (Israeli secret service; someone as dumb as you might not know that) attacked the WTC. Of course, the same idiots who say this also say that it is the US' pro-Israel policy which led to the attack. I wish they'd get the story straight.

      And it's not Afghans who did the attacks. It's the Arabs who are HOSTED by the Afghans in exchange for at least $100Million who did the attack.

      Let me know if I'm using words that are too big for you to understand; I'll try to drop to single syllables.

      And you believe unquestionably that the US is right to bomb the hell out of third-world nation because of this?

      I don't give a fuck if it was a first world nation or a third world nation. Afghanistan is harboring the people who planned the murder of 5,400 of my countrymen, who attacked my country's embassies, attacked my country's Navy, and who have taken credit for attacking my country's soldiers when on a UN-supervised humanitarian mission in Somalia. All of these actions are acts of war.

      The thugs who run Afghanistan have been presented evidence of these crimes in the past, including the attacks on US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. They did nothing. And the people who aren't revolting against the Taliban? Fuck them. Not doing anything is complicity in the crimes of their leaders. There are certainly Afghanis who are rebelling; why aren't there more?We should be dropping neutron bombs, not food.

      If you want a good historical analogy, study up on the Barbary pirates who controlled Libya in the early 1800's. Very similar situation to what is happening now with Afghanistan.

      Your thought experiment proves one thing : that you believe that violence solves everything.

      Of COURSE violence solves everything. Only a ninny thinks otherwise. Where are the Pics who used to live in England? Why exactly is your royal family descended from French invaders? Why are V2 rockets not landing on your countrymen's heads anymore? Violence. How did the British Empire get to be so rich? Violence. And here's something for you to think about: what is it that backs up the non-violent decisions made by civil courts in Western nations? The fact that violence would be done to the person who ignored the decision.

      Now that you are living in amazing luxury (compared to 99% of the human race, past and present), you can sniff your nose at the violence which has enabled your easy life. That's hypocracy and cowardace. You think it's OK for people to have killed on your behalf, but don't let anyone else do it for themselves.

      -jon

      --

      Remember Amalek.

  106. Re:Ultimate Fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suck my candy hard cock

  107. Anthrax-laced mail to hit M$ ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1



    Am not trying to spread rumors here, but there are reports that M$ has received anthrax-laced snail-mail which was sent from a Moslem country.

    Can anyone from M$ confirm this?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Anthrax-laced mail to hit M$ ? by norculf · · Score: 1

      I can't.

    2. Re:Anthrax-laced mail to hit M$ ? by hedgefrog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Story here. It was sent to the licensing division offices in Reno Nevada. (I have to wonder if it was really terrorism or just somebody upset with their new licensing system)

      --

      I lost my copy of the green golf ball joke can anyone find it for me?
    3. Re:Anthrax-laced mail to hit M$ ? by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 2
      The first test was positive. The second was negative. The third was positive.

      Wonder what the fourth test will show?

    4. Re:Anthrax-laced mail to hit M$ ? by KupekKupoppo · · Score: 1

      Wonder what the fourth test will show?

      Kraft Cheese and Macaroni.

    5. Re:Anthrax-laced mail to hit M$ ? by MrFudd · · Score: 1

      The mail in question supposedly came from Malaysia. Most Malays are Muslim, and Malays are the largest ethnic group in Malaysia, making up about half the population. The rest are ethnically Chinese, Indian, or indiginous (Dayak, Kadazan, what have you). AFAIK Neither the ethnicity nor the religion of the person who sent the letter has been reported on the wires.

      In breaking news, the Observer quotes US intelligence sourcres pointing to Iraq as the origin of the Anthrax.

      --
      If you meet the wabbit on the woad...
    6. Re:Anthrax-laced mail to hit M$ ? by raslin · · Score: 1

      yea it was on cnn's home page yesterday

    7. Re:Anthrax-laced mail to hit M$ ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be the first time they've spotted a bug before it did any serious damage...

    8. Re:Anthrax-laced mail to hit M$ ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people are probably enjoying that fact.

      It is not the muslims behind all the crap going down. It is you Linux-heads trying to promote your socialist agenda.

  108. Re:Killing mail? What about people? by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just told a good friend who told me she had flu symptoms to phone the ER and see if she should go in, so I apologize if a dip in snail mail seems a bit on the trivial side at this moment.


    Phone the ER because of flu symptoms? Sorry, but here in Ontario people going into their local ER because they had trivial things like a common cold or a regular flue is directly responsible for thousands or tens of thousands of deaths per year (because the guy who actually does have a problem gets deferred while the person with the headache gets treated). If you are saying "Stop the mail! Someone might die!" then that is absolutely, positively, grossly ridiculous and knee-jerkish: Did you know that every consumer good you buy has a "human cost" to it? Why not ban car travel, air travel, hell human interactions in general because people might die undertaking any of those? 96 people died building the Hoover dam? Do you think about that when you turn on your computer? The Empire State Building took 5 lives directly in its construction, and countless more in the mining, smelting and rolling of the metal to build it, in the transport to get items to and from the construction site, etc.


    "On a long enough timeline the survival rate for all of us is 0." Fight Club - Narrator (Jack) The human condition is one where death is part and parcel with the terroritory.


  109. A day late, a dollar short... by dbCooper0 · · Score: 1
    I TRIED to post the more pertinent info on this about two hours before this; it (as usual) was rejected. My title was "Anthrax Sent to Microsoft Subsidiary in Reno", and I included links such as the ABC News.com Article as well as CNN.com's coverage. I also read the story about this being the end of snail mail, and discounted it as obvious bullshit, therefore I did not include that link. Go figger - this is a lame story - IMHO.

    My thoughts were to encourage the /. community help disseminate reports of anthrax outbreaks and possibly help the *world* be on guard - whether it be terrorists or just plain sickos doing this.

    I guess my point is: with the great coverage by the /. community (and now, not as much credit to Taco and the rest) when the shit hit the fan on 10/11/01, how can we help the CDC stay on top and others to prevent a widespread panic (and applied to other forms of mischief) by doing our part?

    What do you think?

    --
    db
    Cig:
    ôô
    /`
  110. Terrorist message system... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    US forgien policy sucks - US embassies get bombed

    World trade gets screwed at the controls of the US
    Trillion dollar bet - WTC gets taken down.
    Pentagon and supposed Capitol Building attack - Military and lawmakers

    News Media Propoganda - Anthrax attacks (SUN and NBC - What did Tom Brokaw say that caused him to get a letter?)

    Microsoft Licensings - Anthrax attack (Microsoft proven anti-trust with US and anti-competitive investigations in EU)

    Hell, that's a pretty loud message system huh?

    But by seeing the pattern and the message being Spelt across the US, concern about anthrax effecting US mail is less a
    concern than mail bombs. Maybe there is more concern about just being fair.

  111. Re:Ultimate Fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that is Rusty, I would do anything to it. Do you want a detailed description, Sir?

  112. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by spudnic · · Score: 2

    I actually like getting those in the mail lately. Now that they come in those nifty DVD hard cases I'm working my way through all my DVD's that came packaged in a cheapo cardboard case and moving them over.

    Now if I could find an easy way to get that darn mailing label off the back of them.

    --
    load "linux",8,1
  113. Spooged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just spooged when Auburn intercepted grossman again. So, I am spent. Sorry.

  114. Re:Snailmail is dying? Sounds kinda like *BSD... n by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

    Email does have reliable authentication, including OpenPGP and S/MIME. Postal mail has nothing but a postmark indicating which city/zip code the letter was sent from.

    As for how many people use OpenPGP, a rough estimate can be obtained from the number of keys known to the keyservers: Number of keys: 1,577,742 according to a report from August, 2001. Also, keep in mind that not everyone who uses pgp or gnupg submits their key to a keyserver.

    --
    Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
  115. you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    inadequacy.org is a troll site?!

    craig would be so offended to hear such things being said about it!

    i'm a little heartbroken myself.

  116. Re:I already post at -1, Fartknocker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, you are posting at 0. I'm sure someone will correct the problem shortly. Can't wait to read the new troll though.

  117. Unabomber II - Bioterror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US mail system is a perfect delivery mechanism for contagious diseases. Imagine 1000 payloads sent to a mixture of corporations and communities in 50 major cities. The CDC would be overwhelmed trying to contain the problem, especially if all 1000 letters were all delivered and opened within a 24 hour period. You would only need to target mail drops in each of the major areas of the US. Last I checked, we don't have mail drop marshalls (or ever will).

  118. Intel is well prepared to handle this... by frleong · · Score: 2

    "Only the paranoid survive..."

    They have those scientists with pretty silver suits to handle snail mail with viral attachments...

    --
    ¦ ©® ±
  119. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bah, go back to K5 where all of you elitist (and mostly white european) schmucks can wank all over each other with idiotic words like "USian".

  120. Threat of bioweapons hugely overstated by Sanity · · Score: 2

    The dangers of Anthrax and other bioweapons is hugely overstated. Anthrax is virtually harmless unless in powder form, and it is hugely expensive to create powdered Anthrax. It is also very difficult to deliver it, it tends to simply blow away and become so dispersed that it is harmless. Can Anthrax kill? Of course, but there are thousands of cheaper ways to kill people (letter bombs, guns, etc).

    1. Re:Threat of bioweapons hugely overstated by Arlet · · Score: 2

      Maybe the people behind the anthrax letters are only trying to get people scared (even the authorities are now warning people to be careful with handling mail), and it looks like this is a fairly effective way. Even though the number of letters sent with anthrax is insignificant compared to the total amount of mail, a lot of people are worried that they may be the next target. Also, if a large terrorist group is behind this, they have shown that they can create anthrax, and maybe they'll find better ways to deliver it. The fact that a lethal dose of anthrax is very small, means that it could be anywhere, especially if the goal is only to kill a few people here and there.

  121. How do you send the following with e-mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * Gifts (graduation money, flowers, gifts, etc...)

    * Magazines that people are subscribed to

    * Packages

    * Anything else that's not just text

  122. We're all going to switch from snail mail to email by miahrogers · · Score: 2

    sort of how we all switched away from UPS and FedEx when people started sending mailbombs?

  123. What if the diseases were on paper money? by rousseau · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The thought occured to me, that if one motivation of sending mail with infectious agents is to have the parcel contact as much and many other parcels as possible inorder to maximize the probability of spreading the disease, the fastest and most reliable means of transmission would be paper money. Imagine lacing 1, 5, and 10 dollar bills with small pox, then distributing it to a bank, and allowing it to pass from hand to hand to hand, infecting even 50% of those who have contact with the money is a scary thought..

    Not implausable though..

    1. Re:What if the diseases were on paper money? by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      Be too difficult to pull off without killing most people IN your terrorist organization.

      I suspect that this is why Anthrax is used--it is not that contageous... But this is why bioterrorism is likely to be limited.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:What if the diseases were on paper money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what Ive seen, they dont mind killing people in their organization

    3. Re:What if the diseases were on paper money? by Graymalkin · · Score: 2

      Smallpox is a pretty wellknown disease and while a few people might end up infected and maybe die it would die out pretty quickly. If something was really widespread the CDC could engineer Salk or Sabin like vaccine they could stick in Big Macs. You go to McDonald's and pick up a McCure for 1.99$ with fries and a Coke andblamo you're innoculated. To get decent infection rates you'd need to lace thousands of dollars worth of bills and put them in a bank. That's pretty ineffective because the money would probably remain in storage long after the virii's outdoor lifetime.

      --
      I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
    4. Re:What if the diseases were on paper money? by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      Yes, but that is in suicide attacks. It os one thing to have someone blow himself up, but to kill most of the people in one's organization with, say, smallpox is no way to win a war. These people see themselves as resistance fighters. They are not going to do something that will jeopardize their ability to carry on.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  124. That's funny by roystgnr · · Score: 2

    I agree with your conclusion, but almost none of your arguments:

    Postal mail creates jobs

    So did iceboxes. The ice men found new jobs.

    packages - What's the point in all this e-commerce if nobody has anything delivered anymore?

    I've had at least a dozen packages ordered online and delivered. Some used UPS, some used FedEx; none used the postal service.

    Utility Bills - Until some laws are changed you must be provided with an invoice for your purchase and written notification of money owed.

    I'm sure laws here vary from state to state, but I no longer legally have to get paper confirmation of every single stock trade I make, for one example, I just had to formally agree that email confirmation alone would be acceptable. There are a lot of non-utility services that are willing to go without sending you a written bill if they have a credit card number or checking account transfer information, and there are ways to pay many bills on line more manually if you feel the need to personally authorize each transaction. This is a good reason, but not a show stopper.

    Taxes - Like anything done by the government, this ones going to be done the old world way for a long time.

    Yeah, by people who want to do it the old world way. The IRS at least has been accepting electronic submissions on their most commonly used forms for years.

    Books and periodicals - Some people (myself included) prefer to read anything of great length on paper.

    Me too. But that's just an eyestrain thing with me; I'm really looking forward to seeing some of these "electronic paper" technologies being prototyped. Besides, most of my books come from a bookstore and most of my periodicals come online, nowadays.

    Also there is a certain pride in owning a handsome book, admiring the cover as you put it away on a shelf, where you will never touch it again.

    You have an odd sense of pride - this is really the sentence that prompted my response, as your psychology fascinates me. I have a couple untouched books on my shelves, but generally that status is a source of shame, not pride.

    registered mail - any sort of mail that requires a signature is coming to you the old fashioned way. I know, there's a million technical solutions that would make this work as digital, but your written signature is an important legal tool that people will continue to hit you over the head with forever.

    This you may be right about. Frankly, digital signatures are much harder to forge than the old-fashioned kind, but way too permanently stealable. Can you imagine if every instance of ILOVEYOU had installed a keyboard sniffer to grab passphrases?

    1. Re:That's funny by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2
      I've had at least a dozen packages ordered online and delivered. Some used UPS, some used FedEx; none used the postal service.

      The unfortunate thing is that almost everyone uses UPS, and that UPS is the worst carrier out there. They damage goods--and never pay the claim! Their delivery system is atrocious--three tries, and then I get to drive two hours from where I live in the heart of Denver, the capital city of Colorado and largest town for about 8 hours in any direction.

      But what upsets me most is that they will not deliver easily to my apartment building. The post office can enter, but UPS cannot. So I have to have things delivered care of my landlady, who may not always be home. And then I get the joy and fun of driving two hours out.

      I'd take USPS for a buck more a package and another two days delivery time any day of the week. At least my packages make it to my door.

  125. Lest we forget why e-mail sucks... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    Hi! How are you?

    I send you this anthrax in order to have your advice.

    See you later. Thanks

    Seriously, though. Just about everybody with a computer has a modem, and a slightly smaller number of those people have a scanner. So why does he believe that e-mails are more advantageous than faxes?

  126. USPS still has its uses... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    As long as I still keep getting checks made out to me here in Florida and my bank sits in Texas, I'll always have at least one use for the USPSl.

  127. Almost impossible by Rotten168 · · Score: 1
    Read here to find out why. From the article:
    "In liquid form, anthrax is useless - droplets would fall to the ground, rather than staying suspended in the air to be breathed by victims. Making powder needs repeated washings in huge centrifuges, followed by intensive drying, which requires sealed environments. The technology would cost millions. "
    Basically, turning Anthrax into a powder form is nearly impossible without a huge lab and expensive expensive equipment.
    1. Re:Almost impossible by xmedar · · Score: 1

      Or you could mop the water up with say a desiccant like that is used to pack equipment (you must have seen a sacket of it come in a box with something you bought at one time or another) as thats a chemical reaction and would leave the bacteria untouched, or a very small filter like they use in semiconductor labs to filter the air, just get one with a mesh size large enough to catch the bacteria.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
  128. In other news... by morcheeba · · Score: 2

    207,882,000,000 anthrax-free parcels were delivered by the usps last year (that's 1/5th of a Trillion). Yeah, I think it's both pretty safe and here to stay.

  129. EMAIL WON'T SAVE YOU! by aechols · · Score: 1

    you know, digital pathogens such as melissa, iloveyou, the....tennis player one whatever her name is, sircam, nimda, etc. have cost us more (so far at least, hopefully it'll stay that way) than a few cases of anthrax. especially with people this alert, anthrax isn't so lethal any more. now now if only things like windows and outlook had an immune system...

    --
    Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
  130. mail is dead, until... by Telastyn · · Score: 1

    of course the next Outlook virus is named Anthrax.

  131. why not irradiate letters? by cowtamer · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if USPS took some gamma ray emitters (i.e., the kind they use to sterilize food, hospital equipment, etc--Cobalt 60, I think) and "nuked" every letter before it got to the destination, wouldn't that solve the whole Anthrax/letter based bioterrorism problem?

    This would probably be relatively easy to centralize.

  132. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by jonbrewer · · Score: 2

    I disagree somewhat.

    I get bills in the mail, and pay them electronically. If the vendor does not support electronic transfer, my bank takes care of the check-printing and mailing for me, without my knowledge.

    I get phone messages at work. (a nice button on my phone keeps it from ringing about 80% of the time.) I return those messages via email.

    So when you say you return correspondence in the way initiated, I say you don't have to.

    I certainly don't!

  133. Junk Mail vs. Spam by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    I get junk mail. I get spam. Personally, if I had to choose one or the other, I'll go with the junk mail any day.

    The first thing that comes to mind is the fact that, for the recipient, junk mail is free. It may not be wanted, but I don't have to pay $20+ for the privledge to download it.

    Secondly, there is an appreciable cost for the advertiser to send junk mail, while a spammer only needs an internet account. The fact that the advertiser needs to worry about costs means that they'll be more careful with who to send the advertising to. I don't think I've ever gotten junk mail, for instance, that wasn't in English.

    If you get suckered into some shady deal through spam (bogus contests, pyramid schemes), about all you can do is ask their ISP nicely to please remove their account. If you get suckered into something similar through junk mail, the USPS has their very own law enforcement arm to hunt people like that down and prosecute them.

    And speaking of postal laws, there are legal limits to what unsolicited mail can advertise. I can't count the amount of spam I get for sex sites, while the closest I've gotten to unsolicited pornographic junk mail was the ol' Victoria's Secret catalog (and even then I think it was addressed to the former occupant).

    So, even though junk mail may kill the rain forests and is aided by the USPS itself, I still find it infinitely better than the spam that even now flods my e-mail boxes.

    1. Re:Junk Mail vs. Spam by Jeremi · · Score: 2
      The first thing that comes to mind is the fact that, for the recipient, junk mail is free. It may not be wanted, but I don't have to pay $20+ for the privledge to download it.


      You do have to pay to dispose of it though (one way or another), and eventually you'll have to pay for the environmental costs incurred by the creation and transport of so much useless paper. You also spend a certain amount of time every day sorting the "real" mail from the "junk" mail; inasmuch as time is money, that is a cost for you. Given all that, I prefer spam to junk mail (at least I can set up an automatic spam filter for my email)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:Junk Mail vs. Spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but junk mailers get discounts from the post office. The difference is made up for by charging you more for stamps. You are directly paying for the privilege of receiving junk mail every time you buy a stamp.

      Don't ask me why.

  134. circumvention devices by einhverfr · · Score: 2

    Seriously, if USPS took some gamma ray emitters (i.e., the kind they use to sterilize food, hospital equipment, etc--Cobalt 60, I think) and "nuked" every letter before it got to the destination, wouldn't that solve the whole Anthrax/letter based bioterrorism problem?

    OK. So do you irradiate packages too? If not, then the pathogens get sent in packages. OK. So you irradiate packages. Now you cause problems for certain types of packages, so you deliver these in protective containers. OK. So now the pathogen gets delivered in these protective containers...

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  135. Sanil mail was already slowing in usage by WyldOne · · Score: 2

    The internet is doing it, not Anthrax. Considering that lots of people still do have access to e-mail, regular mail will not end any time soon.

    Furthermore; there will always be a need for regular mail for packages, and larger items and some secure communication.

    --

    make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
  136. Re:Killing mail? What about people? by deebaine · · Score: 2

    Hindsight is always 20/20. Unfortunately, knowledge of whether she's the person with the headache or the person with the problem is difficult to come by in advance. I'll spare the gory details, but suffice it to say that this isn't a runny nose.

    Ultimately, they didn't ask her to come in, but they didn't tell her she was ridiculous and also suggested that they would notify her if their opinion changed. I also believe you have misdiagnosed the issue; several EMTs with whom I am friendly warn of how dangerous a phony or unwarranted 911 call can be, but I've never really heard of a phone call to the emergency room costing lives, certainly not in the numbers you suggest.

    Your post interests me, but I am afraid I don't quite understand the link between it and "human cost." My sole point was that in the face of something which may kill dozens or hundreds of people, a jump in the number of emails seems unimportant to me.

    -db

  137. Both mediums are hurting... by batobin · · Score: 2

    Anthrax is hard to come by, and easy to treat. Small penalty for using the postal service.

    Carnivore, hackers, and new govermental controls (passed only this last week by Senate and House) are going to happen much much much more often, and there's no way to "treat" it.

    Plus, unlike Anthrax, you have no idea you've been violated using e-mail. At least when you develop a rash, you know something isn't the way it should be.

  138. The Govt. will LOVE this! They can read email.... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

    without a court order thanks to the new laws they are passing now.

  139. This is great news! by Evro · · Score: 1

    This makes perfect sense! I mean, there's no way to catch a virus through email. Right?

    --
    rooooar
  140. Anthrax sent to Microsoft, Nevada by Fryboy · · Score: 1

    Seems like someone needs to re-read the Advocacy HOWTO :)

    Fryboy

  141. Rumors of snail mail's death greatly exaggerated by davidc · · Score: 1

    I forsee that anthrax will kill off snail mail just as effectively as letter bombs have... i.e.. not at all.
    As for email taking over from snail mail, I don't see that happening for many, many years to come. At least not while a large part of the population cannot even correctly operate things as simple as ATMs.

  142. Overblown by Animats · · Score: 2

    This anthrax thing is way overblown. One person is dead, and they were quite old and thus more vulnerable to infection. Anthrax is not contagious. It's treatable if diagnosed early. This is way down in the noise compared to auto accidents, AIDS, etc.

  143. Testing Positive for Exposure.. by hacker · · Score: 3, Informative
    Please be aware that testing positive to exposure to Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis) does not mean that you have Anthrax. Testing positive means that your body tests positive for the presence of antibodies that are used to fight this particular bacteria. It does not mean you have the spores on your skin (cutaneous), in your lungs (pulmonary), or in your gastrointestinal tract (GI).

    There is one case of an Anthrax infection that has been reported so far. One case, and that person has died. That particular case involved a non-GMO (Generically Modificed Organism) version of the Anthrax bacterium. The other cases are a completely different variety of the same bacterium (cutaneous). The one in Florida may very well be a completely natural infection which occured. Yes, there has not been a single case reported in the U.S. of an Anthrax infection in 25 years, and within one week, there are over 7 cases on the books, so you can guarantee that it's intentional, but do not continue to spread the FUD without some knowledge behind you.

    The others may not be, but nobody else has been infected with Anthrax to date except this Florida case. The other people you are hearing about have only tested positive for the antibodies which the body produces naturally to fight off the presence of Anthrax.

    There's too much FUD in the news right now.

    Lastly... there's an interesting quote from al-Queda spokesman Suleiman Abu-Gheith today saying:

    "...Muslims in the United States and Great Britain should not fly or live in high buildings..."
    This is far from over. Please feel free to print and post this mail warning in high-traffic mail areas within your business if you believe you may be in one of the "Icons Of America" that these letters seem to be hitting.
    1. Re:Testing Positive for Exposure.. by markmoss · · Score: 2

      First, the Dept of Agriculture has done a very good job of eliminating the sources of anthrax (infected farm animals). So it's very unusual for Americans to be exposed to anthrax in the first place, unless they work with sick sheep or in a lab studying it. Many of those positive tests are going to turn out to be erroneous, but there is real reason for concern whenever someone who has never done agricultural work really has anthrax antibodies.

      There is only one species of anthrax bacterium. In humans, it takes three forms of anthrax depending on where it enters the body. Pulmonary (lungs) is the least likely form to occur (you have to breathe thousands of spores right down into the lungs), but 99% fatal (to the non-vaccinated), unless you know you've been exposed and get injections of all the antibiotics you can stand _before_ symptoms appear. Cutaneous (skin) is slow-acting so there is time for antibiotics and vaccinations to work -- and usually wouldn't kill you anyhow. Intestinal (from eating infected meat) is also treatable with antibiotics, and doesn't seem to be a practical route for weapons use anyhow. (Unless your target is people so hungry they'll eat an obviously sick sheep...)

      The letter senders no doubt intended that the powder be breathed into the lungs so it killed, but making powder that fine and stabilizing it so it doesn't clump in transit is difficult. Apparently the first letter was only partially successful (got one person, and didn't get past the nose in others), and the other letters were even less successful. Since the one pulmonary case was in Florida and the origin of the letters is thought to be Florida, it probably is a case of the powder clumping up with time so it probably wouldn't even become airborne in NYC. Someone who was handling that letter had a break in the skin, and the anthrax got in there.

  144. Why Isnt There a Story about Microsoft?? by sunconscious · · Score: 0

    Why isn't there a story about anthrax sent to Microsoft? Oh, right... then we'd see the true nature of this site, wouldn't want that... too unPC

  145. It's all a New World Order plot.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...by the elites to get us afraid to use snail mail for, among other things, paying bills with checks or money orders. Then someone like Larry Ellison or Scott McNealy will come along and tell everyone it will be so much more convenient and safer to do all our transactions with a handy-dandy universal account card. And forget cash! No telling what kind of chemicals or germs are on that dingy stuff. (Ever seen some of the bills in a titty bar? ;)

    Can anyone see mark-of-the-beast, Revelation, 666, and all that stuff at work here?!?

    They don't want you to be able to use currency or checks, and if you don't have the universal mark ("national ID") you won't be able to buy or sell from anyone and you'll be frozen out of the economy.

  146. Solution: irradiate all snail-mail by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Irradiation of hand-written mail would sterilize anything passing through the irradiator and leave no radioactive residue. It would mean an end to sending live things (I've traded sourdough via email) and radiation sensitive items like electronic parts or film would have to be marked specially or sent another way -- but routine irradiation would make it much, much harder to sneak live anything into someone's mail.

    1. Re:Solution: irradiate all snail-mail by Troodon · · Score: 1

      Certainly, its a question of how resiliant the anthrax spores are to such and how much it would cost to roll out. I can at least provide a little insight on the latter, over here in the UK there was a 'big fuss' over the introduction of such sterilization by some big supermarket chains to extend the shelf of fod stuffs.

      Such is already used for surgical instruments and other stuff. As long as one can just provide a good overkill dose and avoid anything beyond quality asurance, its apparently realtively low cost. Perhaps more citically its public acceptance that is the critical factor.

      --
      troodon.net
    2. Re:Solution: irradiate all snail-mail by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is madness. I irradiate bacteria for a living... I couldn't find any data for anthrax spores, but for irradiation of Clostridium botulinum spores, the D-10 value (dose needed to kill 90% of population) is something like 2 kiloGray. The FDA requires 5 logs for a food treatment, and if you're talking about sterility, that's 9 logs, or 18 kGy, a dose transit time of hours, even in the most powerful irradiators available.

      Paper is essentially wood pulp, and a stack of mail has a density about twice that of water, 2g/cc. How many thousands, millions of kilograms would need to be irradiated every week, and to get the right max/min ratios to assure kill, the doses would have to be up in the 40-50 range.

      I wish I had moderator status to mod this suggestion as "-1 Knucklehead".

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    3. Re:Solution: irradiate all snail-mail by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Thats a little harsh. maybe Igorant.
      When someone from outside your specialty has an opinion, I would suggest not calling them names.
      I wisj I could moderate you to -1 grouchy.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Solution: irradiate all snail-mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, why don't we all just hide in our darkened basements and sit in the corner with a shotgun? Then we'll be safe.

  147. Email viruses by debreuil · · Score: 1

    Actaully this just levels the playig field. Now we can worry about getting a virus from opening both types of mail. Esp Microsoft mail with porn attachments.

  148. You are right, we should not dismiss bio attacks by FreeUser · · Score: 2

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    If news reports are to be believed, the U.S. mail has already proved to be viable way of spreading two different kinds of anthrax.

    Actually, there are three kinds of anthrax (two of which have occurred in the United States, probably delivered by US Mail). However, all are caused by the same type of spores. The difference in only one of how the disease is contracted, i.e. through a cut or scratch in the skin vs. inhilation vs. consumption of diseased meat. Only one type of spore was delivered (though whether all the attacks were of the same strain or not remains to be determined).
    You are absolutely correct about the viability of cantagious agents such as smallpox and plague, particularly given the fact that the terrorists are perfectly happy to die in the delivery of the product. Imagine bus boys sprinking a tasteless powder on meals in a restaurant. Several hundred people in a single city infected in a single night. Depending on the incubation period and period of contagion we could be looking at tens of thousands of infections, scattered around the country, before even a hint of the outbreak reaches the CDC.

    We are, in many respects, lucky it was only anthrax, which is not contagious between people.

    There is reason and evidence enough to be concerned. Panic stricken, no, but concerned, yes. Dismissing the notion of biological attack merely because the idea is unpleasant is silly -- attacks are possible, and delivery on a wide scale using unconventional means (infecting terrorists and having them move about through crowds, spraying infectious substances on doors or escalator handholds, dusting food in restaurants, etc.) are all eminently feasable and potentially deadly.
    Some degree of reasonable vigilance and diligence is both constructive and warranted. Denial and blithe dismissal of the possibility are both foolish and unproductive.
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

    iD8DBQE7ySF02TX54E1iXfYRAoIZAKCNta8x3pWckjy8dJ8T Ms svV4lfKwCfcFZ8
    LOeoD1D7HvUh3WJfw1MuxUg=
    =ox7w
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  149. Re:Someone will come up with a snail mail virus sc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bacteria scanner you mean.

  150. Re:How crazy is this? (perceived control) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the psychological research consistently shows, people are more sensitive to (perceived) control of risk level, rather than absolute risk level.

    hence people will vigorously protest the opening of the local nuclear waste dump while smoking cigarettes (they can stop smoking anytime :) ) or be afraid of flying but ok with driving (since they are the ones at the wheel).

  151. One flaw in the logic. by BlueTurnip · · Score: 2

    There is a flaw in Mr. Levy's reasoning. He claims that with people will switch from snail mail to e-mail to avoid the risk of getting anthrax in the mail.

    But the person who determines the mail format (e- or snail) is the sender not the receiver, and I don't see how you would get anthrax sending mail (unless, of course, you were mailing anthrax, in which case e-mail wouldn't be an option anyway.)

    So I don't see how the anthrax scare could be responsible for an increase in e-mail and decrease in snail mail.

    By the way, how long do you think it will be before some hacker figures out how to send anthrax as an e-mail attachment. With all the security holes found in Outlook to date, it wouldn't surprise me if people start dying. Wasn't one of the Florida anthrax cases caused by bacteria found on the keyboard? Something to think about.

    1. Re:One flaw in the logic. by JohnG · · Score: 2

      Well aside from sending poison as an email attachment, I agree completely. :)
      Not only that but I trust my friends, family and anyone else I would email not to lace their letters with Anthrax. It's the junk mail that might be poison, and they are the ones contacting me, not vice-versa as you pointed out.
      I don't use snail-mail at all for sending, but I fail to see how one person dying in Florida is going to cause people all across the country to be afraid of their friends.

  152. This is happening....in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christmas parcels to relatives in Toronto always disappear into a black hole.

    Try it if you don't believe me.

  153. That's what Ashcroft wants... by jmorse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...because now he can use his new super powers to deploy carnivore to your ISP (without a warrant, by the way) and spy on *all* your correspondence.

    This terrorist hysteria is far too convenient for the reactionary elements of our country. I smell a rat.

    --

    "You done taken a wrong turn."
    -Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
  154. Re:Killing mail? What about people? by Detritus · · Score: 2

    Influenza kills 10-40 thousand people per year in the United States. It may not be a big deal if you are young and healthy, but it is a serious illness for many people.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  155. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by Jeremi · · Score: 2

    Well, I keep trying to think up reasons why someone couldn't do a mass-mailing of anthrax, and I can't think of any. Businesses do mass-mailings all the time, what would stop someone evil from adding a few spores in with the spam? The toughest obstacle would be the production of that much anthrax, AFAICT.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  156. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by aliebrah · · Score: 1

    Oh I'm not from the US. In fact I think the USPS is pretty terrible, I'm only here as a student. But just because the USPS is slow/inefficient doesn't mean that they don't perform an essential service. Take them away and what have you got left?

  157. Die, snail mail, die! by EvilStein · · Score: 1

    ...the less junk mail and 7365.54% APR credit card offers I get, the better. I say, let it die! :P

  158. And guess what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    E-mail is easier to eavesdrop on than snail mail, which I think is the whole purpose of this episode.

  159. PGP Signed USPS.GOV email is not such bad policy by NynexNinja · · Score: 1

    Let me first say that I don't think Snail Mail should ever be abolished. If USPS had a policy of granting an email address of some kind to anyone who could show proper state identification, as well as PGP public/private keys, and then when someone sends you email, it would be signed via the USPS, authenticated in that manner, the major impact I see is a dramatic reduction in spam. Current SMTP protocols would have be modified to support this feature. One could bounce all incoming mail that was not signed via the USPS address.

  160. Only one layer needs to touch the mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if you were paranoid, you could have one office which dealt with physical mail, while other layers of the corporation communicated with THEM by secured electronic communications.

  161. not if luddites have any say by emeraldkim · · Score: 1

    I'll be sending real letters until they pry my fountain pen out of my cold dead fingers.

  162. Infrastructure attack by bluegreenone · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, no system is immune to attack. If we switched tommorrow to email instead of snail mail for everything, terrorists would have a tempting target for electronic attack, since vital documents would depend on our electronic infrastructure. Really the only solution is to secure any system as much as possible.

  163. I thought email had already eclipsed snail mail by leereyno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought email was the primary means of written communication nowadays. Snail mail is of course still used for business letters, especially form letters, contracts, junk mail, etc. Email is the preferred medium for just about everything else though. Why would anyone want to send a paper letter to someone when they didn't have to? If you ask me, email ranks up there with the invention of the radio, television, telephone, and written language itself.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  164. Replacing snailmail with email requires.... by Llanfairpwllgwyngyll · · Score: 3

    ...encryption technology. Reliable. Without backdoors.

    Why?
    - Because legally binding digital signatures are the only way to shift much snailmail to email.
    - Because strong encryption is the only way to achieve anything like the same level of expected privacy

    Oh, hang on - the USA was about to outlaw encryption, wasn't it? Never mind, better stick to snail mail.

  165. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by Kanasta · · Score: 2

    Not only that.

    Given the hour+ wait times on telephone help numbers for just about every single company I need help from, and given that the same companies do NOT have any online feedback forms at ALL, it's actually a lot less painful to send them a letter and ask them to call you.

    Plus those phone operators usually don't have the knowledge/power to help you and put you on hold again while they ask a supervisor!

  166. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >After the attack, affected businesses had 5 days to switch to using
    >their backup system before they lost any email. Even if they didn't
    >have any backup systems, that's more than enough time to purchase a
    >server, configure it and repoint the MX records.
    >
    5 days eh? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You just proved my point,moron. I'm *SURE* the last thing on people's minds in New York was running out and buying a new server for email 5 days after the Towers went down. I'm sure the same holds true for places hit by an earthquake also.

  167. Now you can get a virus anywhere!! by ciryon · · Score: 1

    Virus, now you cna get them in both your e-mail and your snail mail.

    What about some antivirus checker for your snail mail?

  168. Anthrax to Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody's gotta say it...what's wrong with
    sending Anthrax to Microsoft?!

  169. Before long.. by rve · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Before long, people will figure out how to send viruses by e-mail as well as snail mail. Uhm, hang on...

  170. Anthrax in the mail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only if you work for the tabloids.

    Seriously, one dead only?

    Seems to me like some star got tired of seeing him/herself in stories about how s/he had ten alien babies with a same sex partner, all while being bulemic and possessing the power of ESP.

    Hell, it'd be a perfect time for celebrities to get even with the carrion at such papers as "The National Enquirer" and such. Just blame it on the freaks in Afghanistan. ;)

  171. With a little help from Captain Trips... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He'll bring the world to its knees!

  172. email with worms ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool, so everyone moves to e-mail for written communication, which is then killed by all the
    Outlook worms ... Oh wait i use Linux for my email :-) Does this mean everyone is going to use linux now ?

  173. switching to email wont help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think people are overlooking the obvious here.

    People won't be scared to send mail, you can't get anthrax from that, and people are not going to stop openning the mail they recieve (because it could be important).

    Thus this whole anthrax thing will ultimately have no effect on snail mail what so ever.

  174. Re:You are right, we should not dismiss bio attack by dgroskind · · Score: 1

    Imagine bus boys sprinking a tasteless powder on meals in a restaurant.

    Or putting a tasteless white powder in the salt shakers.

    The ways to deliver biological agents appears to be only limited by your imagination and your willingness to contract the disease yourself.

    I may start bringing my own condiments when I dine out.

  175. No fair! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So us european crapflooders/trolls have to stay up until midnight for the latest troll?
    Can't you do a pre-release or something??

    Anyway, keep up the good work!

  176. It's a choice, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A choice that is really quite a dilema:

    Anthrax bacteria?

    or

    VB virus?

  177. end of USPS... more likely by passion · · Score: 2

    It's far more likely that the US Postal Service will be pushed over the brink of bankruptcy, as people will not want to send letters anymore. They've been in severe economic troubles for years now, and the government continues to bail them out as a service to the nation.

    I see stamp prices rising to 50 cents (like payphone calls), or even a dollar or two.

    --
    - passion
  178. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your dumb and petty contentiousness is exactly why the parent post was moderated up and you were not. You are talking about "exceptional" circumstances as if they're the rule. What an ass you must be in real life.

  179. No, but... by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    Fedex and UPS have better security in some ways, better email and web notification already of when packages are about to arrive, and are more expensive. All of these things make them less attractive to terrorists.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  180. Re:PGP Signed USPS.GOV email is not such bad polic by PMan88 · · Score: 1

    the rest of the world would not be happy with that

  181. Actually, Anthax is easy to come by. by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 1

    You could order anthrax over the net before 9/11 as long as you showed that you had credentials that said you were a university researcher... hell, you could order it over the net.

    How many of our fundamentalist Arabic friends are in college right now? Probably all of them that don't have full time jobs in the USA. How many work at biotech firms, or have the resources to make fake credentials? So how much real efort do you think it really takes now to get a sample of Anthrax? Just admit you don't know the facts, so therefore you don't have a clue, and that your paranoid little mind went for the big conspiracy.

    Yeah, its a conspiracy for America to kill its citizens... from a nation that sends troops to stop other nations from killing their citizens. That would be cost prohibitive, wouldn't it? That would be the opposite if the objective was to subjugate our citizens... would it not?

    Honestly, is there one thing that we want from Kosovo or Bosnia? Name one resource that we can't produce cheaper over here. DO IT. Conspiracies have reasons. NAME THEM.

  182. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by unitron · · Score: 2

    The stuff I get on eBay arrives sooner and for a lower fee via USPS than it does via UPS. If the only shipping offered is FedEx, I don't even bid because of the higher fees, might as well go to the store and buy it new.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  183. What if this is just a test case? by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    Think about it. The idiots doing this - be they terrorists or regular homegrown wackos - would have a hard time knowing how effective their production process is. Wouldn't sending samples of the powder through USPS be a good way of testing effectiveness? It's not a large enough outbreak to cause the sort of massive response that might get them caught faster, but it WOULD make the news, so the perps could know what had worked and what didn't.

    Based on that information, couldn't they then refine their process and launch a more massive attack? For example, consider "Sick Building" syndrome - basically, highly advanced circulation systems in office buildings and skyscrapers blowing germs all through the building. There was a Robin Cook novel (don't laugh) based on the idea of terrorists using building circulation systems to distribute anthrax powder - could this be done? I know, getting the powder fine enough to cause a really nasty case of inhalational anthrax is a bitch, but just making it fine enough to make a lot of people very sick ISN'T that hard. With a few thousand people in a building, people - delivery guys, contractors, janitors - walking in and out all day, how long would it be until someone realized there was a problem? And even though anthrax cannot be communicated directly from person to person, couldn't someone in the offivce building get the spores on their coat, and just track them all over the place?

    Of course, there's a difference between making a few grams and a few kilos of anthrax powder, but it's not really a fundamental one - just one of scale. In fact, couldn't the relative crudeness of the anthrax powder simplify the production process? If it isn't fine enough to cause inhalational anthrax, then the terrorists (or whoever) might be willing to risk exposure to the powder, and just trust a course of high-powered antibiotics to keep them safe.

    I am not an MD, or any sort of medical professional. In fact, I am simple a pimply-faced youth. But are any of these thoughts legitimate?

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  184. What about eBay? by torklugnutz · · Score: 1

    How am I gonna get that $9 Isreali gas mask that I just paid $62 for emailed to me?

    --
    Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
  185. oh my goodness by ReidMaynard · · Score: 1

    what a good troll ... nbc rulz ...

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  186. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by geekinexile · · Score: 1

    "Really, the average person doesn't need to be worried about getting anthrax in the mail. "

    I bet the guy who died in Florida thought he was pretty average. It amazes me how many people in this discussion are so confident at assigning probabilities to events when so little data is available and the situation is changing so rapidly. Mental intertia, I suppose.

  187. Written form of communication, huh... by LilGuy · · Score: 1

    I've got really, really bad writers cramp... only its more like carpal...

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
  188. Anthrax or MS viruses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frankly, I'd rather take my chances on anthrax
    in snail mail than being hit by Microsoft viruses
    in email.

    Sheesh! Let's get our priorities straight.

  189. Electronic Sigs for Physical Packages by DickBreath · · Score: 2

    What we need is some kind of electronic signature for physical packages. This way, I can know which packages come from a trusted/known source. If I order something from Acme, I can at least tell that this package came from there.

    You can then give more scrutiny to packages that you're [a] not expecting, and [b] don't come from a trusted source.

    Furthermore, even in a corporate environment, shouldn't you perhaps be susipcious of a package that you're not expecting? What if you could notify the mail room that you're expecting packages from 1) Geek-Master, 2) Computer-Wizbang, and 3) Porn-World. Then when a package arrives, that isn't on your "expecte" list, they don't forward it to you without asking you if you are expecting this package. Unexpected packages should always be treated with more scrutiny.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re:Electronic Sigs for Physical Packages by JohnnyBolla · · Score: 1

      Isn't that called a return address?

      --
      Carpe Deez
  190. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by Looge+Over+All! · · Score: 0

    So you're Mexican?

  191. Outlaw junk mail before it's too late! by Caractacus+Potts · · Score: 1

    I predict that terrorists will start contaminating junk mail next. It is delivered indiscriminately and widely, and people always tear it into a million pieces and stomp on it before throwing it away, thus ensuring thorough contact. Stop junk mail before it stops you!

  192. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd be surprised how much value some societies (and businesses) place on dumb and petty contentiousness. Slashdot in particular must sicken you.

  193. you're a retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same anthrax that causes pulmonary anthrax infx causes cutaneous infx. Only difference is infection site.

    1. Re:you're a retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Same anthrax that causes pulmonary anthrax infx causes cutaneous infx. Only difference is infection site.

      Completely incorrect, the spores are very different both in the toxicity they emit and the manner in which they propagate into the bloodstream (sepsis).

  194. Good and bad by sketerpot · · Score: 1
    Email is faster that regular mail, costs less to transport, and won't transmit diseases. Perhaps once people use email more regularly they will start caring more when the government tries to open people's email and look around for suspicious things.

    On the other hand, some people do actually send things other than letters through the mail.

  195. A World War II love letter by T1girl · · Score: 2

    You are so right. After my grandfather died earlier this year at age 87, my grandmother found among his effects a love letter he had written in 1942. They had just been married in California three days before his unit was shipped out to the South Pacific. She had riddden the train out there by herself from her home in the Southeast U.S., a big undertaking in those days. The letter was rejected by military censors because it described the traditional merrymaking and ceremonies when the ship crossed the Equator. (No one was supposed to reveal their location; in fact, they were headed to New Caldedonia.)In the letter he talked about how much he loved her and that he was glad they were married, and how nothing, not even death, could ever separate them. Finding this letter after his death was a powerful comfort to her. (They had burned all their other love letters after the war to preserve their privacy) I don't think an ephemeral email could ever have topped this.

  196. Re:I thought this was supposed to happen years ago by TeraCo · · Score: 1
    I bet the same day it happened, disaster recovery plans were swinging into play across the country.

    Yes, companies really do this.

    --
    Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
  197. They Better Not Or I'll Be Out On The Streets by Eddy+Johnson · · Score: 0

    My dad works for the letter carrier's union and if snail-mail dies, I'm out on the streets and I'll have to support myself through school and my company - which isn't going places right now...

    --


    Anonymous Coward: (n.) 1. nerd at school or library. 2. karmawhore in training. 3. embarrased prep.
  198. Sourdough via email? by Roy+Ward · · Score: 1

    Wow! What kind if internet connection do you have? :-)

  199. Snail mail has finally caught up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...been getting viruses* in email for a long time now... 'bout time snail mail caught up... Guess we'll have to call it something else now...

    (* Yes Virginia, I know Anthrax is a bacterium and not a virus...)

  200. wunderful... by samantha · · Score: 2

    NOT. Let's get all those dirty potential terrorists (aka citizens) to switch to e-mail where we've established the infinite right of the Fed to snoop at will. In the meantime lets start an Anthrax scare and then pass it off as the next country we want to bomb the hell out of (Irag) being the perpetrator.

    SIGH. The plot sucks but the people are infinitely gullible and utterly apathetic.

  201. danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "that is exactly the danger from cutanious (sp?) anthrax"

    there is no danger from that form of anthrax. do you know the facts? or do you just like trying to frighten people?

  202. Depending of your goals by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 2

    But they are very impractical as weapons of mass destruction.

    For example, out of the thousands of people in the subway in tokyo where a bunch of wacko's sprayed sarin gas only 12 people were killed. 12 out of thousands. A success? I say no.


    Yeah, but I can spell Shoko Asahara and Aum Shinrikyo, while I don't remember any manga or anime artist. Maybe it doesn't kill many people but it sure frightens them and helps making your name and ideas (distorted) well-known.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  203. tracing by csbruce · · Score: 2

    I thought occurs to me that suspicious letters would be easier to trace back to their origins if each mail-sorting machine stamped letter it sorts with its unique identifier and the time of day. This would be better than just the city & date and would allow tracing back to approximate pick-up routes.

  204. The goal of terrorism? by dj_flux · · Score: 1

    Perhaps, but I doubt bin Laden is a big Marx fan. Besides, it's a cause and effect relationship. You can't get generate the critical mass necessary to "undermine the public's faith in the target government" in the western world without causing a media sensation. So, this is really a pedantic argument.

    Also, bin Laden's specific goals can be found in his interviews and "press releases":
    "We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests not the interests of the Jews. [...] This is my message to the American people. I urge them to find a serious administration that acts in their interest and does not attack people and violate their honor and pilfer their wealth." (more here)

    So, it can be surmised that bin Laden's ultimate goal is not to cause a revolt by American people against the US government, but rather to draw attention to the policies of the US government that he disagrees with, in the hopes that the American people will agree with him, then use the existing system, as it was designed, to affect changes in those policies. A subtle, but very distinct difference.

    Perhaps the most disturbing outcome of this whole affair (besides, of course the deaths of thousands of innocent people), is the opportunism (as you mentioned) that we're seeing in its wake.