Slashdot Mirror


The Magic Box Hoax

Rasvar writes "Here is an interesting article from The Florida Times-Union about a high tech hoax that managed to pull in the likes of Blockbuster Video, US West, Ted Turner, Sen Orrin Hatch and numerous others. I actually attended one of the "demonstrations" of this device years back. I came away cynical becuase of the way he presented stuff. Sometimes it is good to be a cynic. This is a very good article on an impressive high tech scam."

448 comments

  1. Haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha..

    "Madison Priest shows a patent certificate issued by the U.S. government for his magic box technology."

    1. Re:Haha by Gavitron_zero · · Score: 2, Funny

      so i guess this makes it a Certified Hoax...

  2. Who's to blame? by Devil's+BSD · · Score: 2, Informative

    Madison Priest was a big con-artist, true, but if Ted Turner and the rest did their research, wouldn't they have realized that there are physical limitations to a POTS line's bandwidth?

    --
    I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
    1. Re:Who's to blame? by trezor · · Score: 1

      I thought this was supposed to common knowledge to engineers? So incompetent people is finally being punished :)

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    2. Re:Who's to blame? by systemapex · · Score: 4, Informative

      This was the pre-DSL era. Everybody and their brother was supposed to be searching for this very thing - broadband-type bandwidth over standard old telephone lines. These investors wanted to believe in this magic box. When people actually want to believe in something, it becomes orders of magnitude easier to convince them of it. Even so, this guy went to great lengths to convince them. I'm sure there are other, smaller investors that were swindled from shadier, less-convincing con-men using this very same theme.

    3. Re:Who's to blame? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      You fool! Didn't you read the article? They used Zero-point energy to increase the bandwidth of a regular phone line far beyond normal.

      You know, like gamma rays can turn someone into "The Hulk".

      I thought the bit about the VCR was hilarious. I have no sympathy for these companies that lost money on the deal. I hope people got fired over this.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    4. Re:Who's to blame? by yintercept · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought this [the bandwidth of the telephone lines] was supposed to common knowledge to engineers

      Yes, it is common knowledge. About 20 years ago it was 1200 BAUD, then it changed to 2400BAUD. It stuck at 9600BAUD for a long time, and now we run DSL at something 500K BPS. Yes, it is common knowledge...Don't let the fact that "common knowledge" was wrong in the past delude you into thinking that common knowledge today might be incorrect.

    5. Re:Who's to blame? by Slash+Veteran · · Score: 1
      A fool and his money...

      Nothing new here, either from a technology standpoint, or in the fleecing of investors.

    6. Re:Who's to blame? by lostchicken · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Inventors make their livings breaking physical limitations. The 1903 Wright Flyer, the Bell X-1, ADSL, DOCSIS all are things designed to skirt around physical limitations.

      I remember someone proposing illuminating lines with an x-ray maser, in an attempt get very high speed transfer. It exceeded the limitations of the wire by not using it. The wire only contained the data.

      If I had "done my research" I would know I can't get 40gHz signals down an Aluminum wire, but waveguides work just fine.

      If we listen to all limitations, we won't get anywhere. You just have to ask how something works.

      --
      -twb
    7. Re:Who's to blame? by Morgahastu · · Score: 1

      thats what makes it magical.

    8. Re:Who's to blame? by FrostedChaos · · Score: 1

      The speed of the user's modem is not necessarily the same as the physical speed of a POTS line.

      A DSL line is not set up the same way as a POTS line.

      --
      "Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
    9. Re:Who's to blame? by Cramer · · Score: 3, Informative

      BAUD != bit per second
      "an analog phone line" != "an analog phone call"

      There's only so much one can do with 8000 8bit PCM codes per second. As far as the PSTN is concerned, that's it! Engineers have been dreaming up more and more inventive ways to push digital data in an analog form. That's how we have 33.6k (V.34+) and 56k (x2,k56,v.90) -- 56k isn't really an analog encoding it's just straight PCM codes.

      When you take the phone switch(es) out of the middle and try one end of the wire to the antenna of one radio and the other end to an other radio, yes, you can push a great deal of stuff across it. That's how DSL works. It is essitially a trapped radio signal.

    10. Re:Who's to blame? by Megahurts · · Score: 1

      IIRC, it's still 9600 baud

    11. Re:Who's to blame? by SETY · · Score: 2

      Copper telephone wires have a THEORETICAL maximum bandwidth that has not changed. Simple physics. The bandwidth is X and the attenuation per meter is Y.
      All the advances have been in Tx and Rx. They haven't been doping the copper etc. (AFAIK) to increase SNR.
      So it depends what you call common knowledge. TX and Rx has gotten better, the copper has not.

    12. Re:Who's to blame? by jrp2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This was the pre-DSL era. Everybody and their brother was supposed to be searching for this very thing

      Ain't that the truth! At the time that scam artist was operating I was an engineer at US Robotics. We had damn near a revolving door of these kinds of kooks coming in and out. Most never got in, but every now and then one would. As a fairly visible, and known very cynical, engineer, I often was invited to meetings with these types to try to flesh out if they were full of it, or had something interesting. I had 2 favorites, one a scam, the other became 56K.

      The one that was a scam was hysterical. Like the situation in this article, I am pretty sure the guys I met actually believed in it as I think they were too stupid (or too blinded by instant wealth) to know any better. Their "magic software" (yes, they called it just that) would magically give 2 to 5 times better throughput. Over the phone they would not give any details except that it was NOT compression. They would not give me a copy to eval, but offered to fly out to Chicago to give me a demo. So, what the heck, I invited them out to meet with me and the Product Management exec. It ended up being a waste of two hours, but worth it for a good laughable story.

      So, they come out and load their magic on one of our test PCs and demonstrate what was effectively 115 Kbps throughput. Now, remember, at the time the serial port driver that shipped with Windows was limited to 19.2 Kbps. So, when they compared it to a "normal" Windows PC, it was indeed way faster. BUT, we (as well as every other modem mfg) shipped a free driver along with our modem that fixed that problem. MS also fixed the problem in Win98. When I showed them the same type of t-put on another PC in our lab, with the updated driver, their faces dropped, they shook in disbelief that some other genious had discovered this before them. I escorted them out of the building. As a parting gift I gave them a copy of the driver we used, and told them my shortcut back to the airport and recommended a bar on the way.

      My other story is when we met a guy that had been thrown out of Rockwell and Lucent. They had basically told him his invention would never work outside the lab, and the real world phone network would kill it with all it's quirks. He was a Stanford math professor named Dr. Brent Townsend. Though not entirely incorrect, the goofy phone network did pose some serious challenges (particularly in US, Canada and Korea), and it took a couple years to really refine it. His invention was what became 56K (err, 54K, grin) modems. It significantly surpassed what "Shannon's Law" says was the max a voice channel could carry. From what I can tell (a very informed guess), a hair over 90% of the modem using populace (at least in industrialized nations) get at least a significant benefit (stable 42K+ speeds, most around 48K) out of this technology. A technology that almost never happened.

      I mention Dr. Townsend to remind folks that not all the kooks are really kooks. The former (and many other examples) show it pays to be skeptical (and MOST of the kooks really are kooks).

      --
      The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
    13. Re:Who's to blame? by zer0vector · · Score: 1

      An x-ray maser? Maser = microwave amplification due to stimulated emission of radiation. Perhaps you've gotten something mixed up here, x-ray and microwave a distinctly different portions of the spectrum.

      --

      ----
      Striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap, will be the leap ho
    14. Re:Who's to blame? by fatphil · · Score: 2, Informative

      When I worked for a telecomms consultancy a few years back I saw with a demonstration of 70Mb/s over standard POTS cable. There's _plenty_ of potential still in copper.

      FP.

      (Who runs 2Mb/s over 5.4km of 4-wire to his ISP using Nokia BB2M-EC, with the modems measuring quality A5, which is basically almost perfect, despite the spec saying the limit is 5.0km - I'm sure these babies will go up to 7 or 8km easily.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    15. Re:Who's to blame? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      "A DSL line is not set up the same way as a POTS line."

      Mine is. OK it's set up the same way as 2 telephone lines, as I use 4-wire, but the modem has a 2-wire mode too. All the local telco had to do to get me connected to my ISP was clip 12 ends of wires into 12 wire-end clips (you can tell I work for a telecomms company). For this work they charged me ~$200.

      FP.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    16. Re:Who's to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strictly speaking, no, it wasn't the Pre-DSL era. DSL was first developed in '89 for the purpose of Video on Demand.

      Did you know a T1 can be set up over plain copper? High quality video over twisted pair isn't impossible.

    17. Re:Who's to blame? by 2sheds · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It does seem that Laser at least has become a generic term, with the 'light' bit meaning the spectrum in general - take the Laurence Livermore Labs CMT Laser which they refer to as a 'table top X-ray Laser'. It gets down to 14-20 nm.

      The Rutherford Appleton Lab's VULCAN X-ray Laser here in the UK gets down to about 5.9nm, though it's apparently huge (providing 90J of energy IIRC) whereas the CMT ('Comet') is obviously compact but only produces 5 or 6J of energy.

      That's probably out of date by now but the point stands...

      james

      --

      Absit Invidia
    18. Re:Who's to blame? by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but "xraser" is just so damn hard to pronounce.

    19. Re:Who's to blame? by olman · · Score: 1

      2400 bauds actually. Okay, more like 2550-2650 bauds, but I digress. That just means you can change frequency component of the signal x times a second, which requires, yup, one Hz of bandwith a pop. You can also use amplitude modulation, which got you the original 9600bps modems. (2400Hz * 4 amplitude levels) and so on.

      56k modem is, AFAIK, sort of one-directional ISDN.

    20. Re:Who's to blame? by cscx · · Score: 2

      Strictly speaking, no, it wasn't the Pre-DSL era. DSL was first developed in '89 for the purpose of Video on Demand.

      That's still in the works. I recently saw a demo of HDTV VoD being pushed over DSL. Pretty cool, if you ask me, but also a bit ironic too... it seems that in the future, cable is going to be the way for broadband Internet; yet DSL, for video on demand. Odd considering how they started the opposite way around!

    21. Re:Who's to blame? by jrp2 · · Score: 1

      Small correction. I noticed I mis-spelled the inventor's name. It is Dr. Brent Townshend, not Townsend.

      --
      The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
    22. Re:Who's to blame? by Strike · · Score: 1

      It's not just attenuation, that can be countered with amplifiers. I believe modal distortion (or, pulse dispersion) is a bigger problem. You send out a single pulse with a certain pulsewidth, but that output pulsewidth increases with length due to the differing path lengths of the charges.

    23. Re:Who's to blame? by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      A Very informative and interesting post! Thanks for the insight as to what goes on at companies like yours. I was at-once captivated and entertained by your post!

    24. Re:Who's to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not DSL, it's a ISDN varient.

    25. Re:Who's to blame? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "Madison Priest was a big con-artist, true, but if Ted Turner and the rest did their research, wouldn't they have realized that there are physical limitations to a POTS line's bandwidth?"

      It's "Magic" . Physical limitations don't apply. Haven't you ever seen one of David Copperfield's shows?

    26. Re:Who's to blame? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "From what I can tell (a very informed guess), a hair over 90% of the modem using populace (at least in industrialized nations) get at least a significant benefit (stable 42K+ speeds, most around 48K) out of this technology. A technology that almost never happened."

      Heh, I'm still getting 28.8 connections out of my USR 56K modem. It's only because there are two A/D conversions between me and the phone C.O.

      I wish the satellite internet providers would hurry up and get things rolling because there is no cable or ADSL available where I live in Canada.

    27. Re:Who's to blame? by shadowbearer · · Score: 0

      *shrug* One would think so.

      Just goes to show how greed can turn off one's brain. I never understood that.

      What I find most amazing is that his wife RETURNED TO HIM. If I ever lied to a woman on that scale, she'd perform surgery on my...never mind.

      Musta been the money, I guess.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    28. Re:Who's to blame? by jrp2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Heh, I'm still getting 28.8 connections out of my USR 56K modem. It's only because there are two A/D conversions between me and the phone C.O.

      Yup, a hair under 10% is a very large number of people. Sorry to hear you are a part of that large minority. Unless you know for a fact you have an additional A/D in the path, be sure to check you have the latest code. There were some significant improvements made to the code, post V.90, that got a whole lot more people working with V.90. A good sign that you have the latest code is if you get 3 "bongs" at the end of the training sequence. Note: not all models had new code built for them. Also note: the third "bong" only kicks in during certain conditions (the modem "thinks" there is a chance it might work). These fixes were to deal with situations like a long local loop (often rural lines) that caused the signal to appear to have encountered an additional A/D when in fact it did not. YMMV.

      --
      The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
    29. Re:Who's to blame? by Phil+Karn · · Score: 1
      Inventors make their livings breaking physical limitations.

      Sorry, but they don't. Inventors make their living doing things that are possible, but just haven't been done yet. The successful ones start with a good scientific background so they won't waste time and money trying to do the impossible.

      That is, unless their "business plan" is to con gullible investors out of their money.

    30. Re:Who's to blame? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "These fixes were to deal with situations like a long local loop (often rural lines) that caused the signal to appear to have encountered an additional A/D when in fact it did not. YMMV."

      Thanks for the advice. I do live in a rural area with a long local loop. Everyone in my area has the same problems. I'll check to make sure the firmware in the modems is up to speed.

      But according to my ISP, everyone south of a particular road (including me) definitely has 2 A/Ds in the path.

    31. Re:Who's to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it's ironic that the kook you threw out went to rockwell and lucent and made DSL. haha. oh. just kidding. that'd be really ironic though

    32. Re:Who's to blame? by SETY · · Score: 2

      I'll agree with you. I only know silica wave-guides. Dispersion is a huge problem (although mostly solved) in fiber.

    33. Re:Who's to blame? by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Interesting story.

      Back to the main topic however, I remember reading about this "great new technology" that would allow full motion streaming video over normal phone lines (not talking DSL here, normal dial up connection.)

      Sounds like it was this guy. I remember thinking "Yeah right. No way in hell."

      Any engineer or reasonably astute person with any mathematics / EE skills should have known better. Frankly, anyone investing money with this guy deserves what they got IMHO. I have zero sympathy for them. It's quite clear that they were just as greedy as the scammer.

    34. Re:Who's to blame? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      A DSL line is not set up the same way as a POTS line.

      Nonsense. The utility of DSL is that it shares a plain copper pair with POTS. Now, if what you meant was that DSL doesn't use modulated audio to transmit data so it doesn't use any Plain Old Telephone Service systems (other than the Last Mile copper pair) then you are correct; however, that is irrelevant to the discussion as Madison Priest never claimed to be transmitting video via a modulated 48v signal-- all he claimed was that he was using a plain copper pair. In essence, he was claiming to have invented some sort of "super DSL" and banking on the fact that Bell Labs et al had been saying for years that the speeds DSL was providing over copper were impossible.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    35. Re:Who's to blame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You are confusing two different limitiations.

      One, is the limitation of actually using a standard dialed telephone line connection to call another line, with an analog modem. This limit is 56K, and will not increase. This is becuase the phone company digitizes the signal, and uses a 56K (or, 64K on some long distance trunks) sampling rate to do so.

      The limitation of the phone WIRE, skipping the dialing another call, is entirely different. THe technology is free to use different signalling than a normal analog line uses.. (such as a digital scheme, hence "D"igital "S"ubscriber "L"ine aka DSL)

      The phone company has been putting digital 1.5Mbps across these same exact types of wires for a VERY long time (Yes, the put a T1 on the exact same wires into your house/building - they just charge more..

    36. Re:Who's to blame? by Krusty_Klown · · Score: 1

      DSL is actually old technology. It was created back in the late 80's for interactive TV. That idea never took off so it was placed on the shelf until one day it was given a second chance and became DSL.

    37. Re:Who's to blame? by Darby · · Score: 1

      As a parting gift I..... told them my shortcut back to the airport and recommended a bar on the way.

      ROFLMAO

      I don't know exactly why, but this part of your story still has me wiping tears from my eyes. I suppose it's probably the visual.

    38. Re:Who's to blame? by chamenos · · Score: 1

      was the guy who demonstrated it called Madison Priest by any chance?

    39. Re:Who's to blame? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Where's the -1 fuckwit when you need one?

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    40. Re:Who's to blame? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Where's the -1 Sheeesh, when you need it?

      Nokia, who make the thing seem to think it's a DSL. Search for "BB2M-EC" on www.nokia.com and you'll get:

      Nokia BB2M-EC Baseband Modem
      The Nokia BB2M-EC is a HDSL 2-wire baseband modem for 2.048 Mbit/s (E1) connections using one or two twisted
      copper pair. It provides 2.048 Mbit/s data rate for full-and half-duplex applications using 2B1Q line coding
      and echo canceling. For shorter line lengths, a 1-pair interface is provided. This unique feature on a 2 M bit/s modem is especially useful if the availability of subscriber lines is limited or the cost of the second line is high. The BB2M-EC uses Nokia proprietary technology that enables high performance.
      The BB2M-EC can be used in the following applications:
      - internet access
      - links between workstations
      - connections to access servers
      - LAN interconnections
      - links between access nodes
      - composite links between multiplexers
      Shortcuts:

      Interfaces
      Line Interfaces
      Line code 2B1Q

      Line interface 1- pair or 2- pair (2- wire or 4- wire)

      DTE Interfaces
      G.703/2M ,V.1 /V.36/ISO4902, V.11/X.2 /ISO4903, V.35/ISO2593, Ethernet 10Base-T(Router/Bridge), EIA-530-A

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    41. Re:Who's to blame? by FrostedChaos · · Score: 1

      I was talking about the signalling.

      --
      "Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
    42. Re:Who's to blame? by tzanger · · Score: 2

      When I worked for a telecomms consultancy a few years back I saw with a demonstration of 70Mb/s over standard POTS cable. There's _plenty_ of potential still in copper.

      Not if you want to avoid having that same 70Mb/s feed available on every other pair in the trunk, there isn't.

      Yes you can get stupendous amounts of traffic through UTP; look at GigE or even LVDS. You have two basic factors: length and crosstalk. Increase power to get the same speed further out, and you increase crosstalk. Reduce crosstalk by either dropping speed or lowering transmission power.

      The reason you can't get 100mbps ethernet speeds over UTP at 5kft is because the telco will not allow you to push that much energy through your pair because you will cause horrendous crosstalk in the trunk your pair shares with the other 52 or more pairs. When Mrs. Gadzky three doors down calls up and says that there's this terrible hissing in the background Ma Bell will come over and shut you down.

      IIRC Shannon's law [C = W log2(1 + S/N )] determines the theoretically available error-free data rate in a transmission system given bandwidth and SNR. No coding method to date has even come close to this level so you're right, there's room for improvement. However hitting that limit is full of its own little problems (pulse widening, etc.).

    43. Re:Who's to blame? by tzanger · · Score: 2

      I remember someone proposing illuminating lines with an x-ray maser, in an attempt get very high speed transfer. It exceeded the limitations of the wire by not using it. The wire only contained the data.

      Ahh yes I remember this one. He claimed to use a maser to influence (modulate) the magnetic field in the power line which would be able to bounce across pole pigs instead of being attenuated. I guess he never heard of Maxwell...

  3. Trusting a Priest? by JZ_Tonka · · Score: 1, Funny

    With all the stuff going on in the Catholic Church, and now this to top it off, how is ANYONE expected to ever trust a Priest again?

    1. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the stuff going on in the Catholic Church

      The sad thing is that all that stuff has been known for years and years. I knew years ago that the church was "solving" the problem by moving the priests around, and indeed, it's been an ongoing joke since at least 1997/1998 in "atheist groups".

      But I guess one should be glad that it is common knowledge now, finally. Better late than never, eh?

    2. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow, you mean that we shouldn't trust people because people in the same profession committed horrible crimes? Wow!

      That does it. I can no longer trust police officers, firemen, doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, stock market folk, bankers, store managers, or anyone else. They've all got members who've committed felonies!

      No, no, no need for justice for them. Their professions obviously predispose them towards criminal behavior. Let's just assume that they're all crooks--the ones who aren't are just biding their time.

      I mean, heck, every priest secretly wants to coodle a young boy. And all that talk about "forgivenenss" that they've been going on about for 2,000 years really is just PR, and they don't REALLY believe that.

      ... or maybe you're a +5 troll, and we should think rationally about who we trust in all manners, and not make sweeping generalizations about professions who can only function if they are trusted?

    3. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, none of the professions you mention have St. Augustine to look back at as a model of sexual maturity.

      This shit is just 2,000 years' worth of chickens coming home to roost. Don't look up.

    4. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As in most scandals these days, it's not the original crime that's causing all of the hubbub as much as the coverup. In this case, more than just a handful of these people knew what was going on over the years, and few if any took any action to change things. That is why the entire organization has lost a big chunk of its credibility, even if there were only a small number of actual offenders.

    5. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Troll
      • all that talk about "forgivenenss" that [priests have] been going on about for 2,000 years really is just PR

      Given that you say 2,000 years, I assume you're talking about the new fangled cult of Christianity. In that case, the story is "Hey! Did you hear about Original Sin? You're burning in hell, buddy. But wait! We've also got the solution! Forgiveness, at a surprisingly reasonable price."

      Yeah, there are probably a few good priests, in the same way that there are probably a few good lawyers, good traffic cops, or (relevant to this story) a few good patent office clerks. But I really do believe that there are some professions where it's a good idea to keep the practitioners as far away from you as humanly possible. It's not right, but pragmatism rarely is. It's simply pragmatic.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (-1, Offtopic, Trollfeeding)

      Wow, you mean that we shouldn't trust people because people in the same profession committed horrible crimes? Wow!

      No, you should mistrust people when people in the same profession have been protected by their professional organization from the consequences of their crimes.

      That does it. I can no longer trust police officers, firemen, doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, stock market folk, bankers, store managers, or anyone else.

      Tell me, friend: if a banker is caught molesting children, is he fired, or is he let off with a promise to reform and shuffled to another branch of the bank?

      If a doctor speaks at NAMBLA meetings and is caught molesting children, does the hospital transfer him to another section of the pediatric ward?

      As the church is discovering, there's a bit of a difference between forgiving sinners and helping them sin more effectively with less fear of reprisal.

    7. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The coverup is worse than the crime. The crime blackens the reputation of the criminal. The coverup blackens the reputation of EVERYBODY in the Church! They all must have known!!!

      I moved into Quebec from a small town in Ontario that was 99% protestant. I was so naive that I believed that all these priest and choir boy stories were just harmless jokes. Then I heard Quebec locals telling choir boy jokes. I was surprised at the bitter and hostile reception from the listeners. The depth of the bitterness could only mean sad past personal experiences!!!

      Then there are the newspaper articles, such as one I remember where a priest was found beaten to death in a motel room. A couple of teenage boys confessed and it turned out the priest tried to seduce the boys, who in turn, did a little gay-bashing. This is not an isolated example, just one of the most extreme ones. If you are a catholic priest, be very careful in hitting on teenagers who might be grownup choir boys.

      In short, the entire church hierarchy must have known about the whole scandal, at least in Quebec. Every school boy has laughed at these priest and choir-boy jokes. These boys in turn may grow up to be priests. The priests, in turn, are promoted to Cardinals. You can't convince they all don't know about the real source of these jokes. In the present church hierarchy there just can't be any truly innocent priests!!!

    8. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is weird that you diss 'original sin' but then you say that you assume that priests, lawyers, cops, patent clerks are for the most part flawed. The ideas are not identical but they are more similar than you may realize.

    9. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to disagree with the specifics you mentioned, but most of the situations are not so clear cut.

      What if someone calls up a bank and says, Hi, I've just discovered a repressed memory that one of your tellers molested me thirty years ago but I don't have any proof.
      Should the branch manager throw the teller out on the street just on the caller's say so? Should he take the case to court, and be in the position of fighting a loyal customer, and defending someone who may be either a disgusting criminal, or completely innocent? Should he settle out of court -- a.k.a, give the caller "hush money"?

      What if the manager is convinced the teller is innocent, convinces the caller that the memory was imagined, and then the teller goes and abuses children the next day? Is that the manager's fault?

      It's obvious to me that in the cases where the bosses knew the guy was guilty, or where there were multiple accusations, that anything less than throwing the guy out on his ear was wrong. But most accusations do not fit into that kind of pattern. I don't know what is the best thing to do in that case. I detest the calls for 'guilty until proven innocent' style justice.
      In the 1980s most dioceses started to follow the nationally recommended policy of taking cases to court when there was some doubt. The archdiocese of Boston (among others) took the more foolish route of settling out of court discreetly, which is pretty much the same as covering up a crime.

    10. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there are probably a few good priests, in the same way that there are probably a few good lawyers, good traffic cops, or (relevant to this story) a few good patent office clerks. But I really do believe that there are some professions where it's a good idea to keep the practitioners as far away from you as humanly possible. It's not right, but pragmatism rarely is. It's simply pragmatic.

      You don't need to trust a patent office clerk or traffic cop (well, "personally" trust, anyway). But you do need to trust YOUR lawyer when you employ one, YOUR doctor when you choose one, and YOUR priest if you go to one.

      Of course, if you *really* don't need a lawyer, doctor, or priest at all, then you're a far better person thanone else I've met. Never suing someone or being suied, completely undserstanding even the most arcane argeement you make, never getting sick or being wounded--and having no mental problems whatsoever.

      I agree, though. There are some professions (let's not go into detail, shall we? It's really a matter of personal taste) that you don't want to associate with at all if you can avoid it. But when/if you *do* find yourself associating with members of these professions, isn't it important to judge the specific person you're deaing with, rather than "the profession?"

    11. Re:Trusting a Priest? by susano_otter · · Score: 2
      In that case, the story is "Hey! Did you hear about Original Sin? You're burning in hell, buddy.

      More like "Hey that unpleasantness you're feeling? That's separation from the Creator. Happily, it's really easy to fix! No donations, no brainwashing, no obligations--just believe, and pursue a personal relationship with the Supreme Being."

      Oh, wait--you're one of those people who confuses the Catholic Church with the fundamental principles of Christianity. Never mind.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    12. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      More like "Hey that unpleasantness you're feeling? bla bla bla
      You're a woman, aren't you? That kind of sheepish devotion was characteristic only of the women when I went to church. Yes, from the same people that brought you "true romance" and "intuition" (and little in the way of human achievement, though I guess those that weren't too self-righteous could be quite kind people...)
    13. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be such a baby. It was tongue-in-cheek, humor and satire. Grow up.

    14. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TWAJS.

    15. Re:Trusting a Priest? by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to follow it up with a, "Now isn't that better? Say, you wouldn't mind giving me a big wad of cash so I can spread this message to otehrs, would you?"

      However you phrase it, it's a misguided solution to a non-existant problem. It's a feel-good-quick scheme that sucks peoples' lives away.

      Oh, and the "all you have to do is say the I-accept-Jesus prayer" is not a fundamental principle of Christianity. In fact, I don't believe that this principle was formulated prior to the 20th century.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    16. Re:Trusting a Priest? by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Trust is earned. Would you mind telling me what the Catholic Church has done to deserve my trust? I mean besides making its priests more dangerous by denying them normal sexual outlets. Or besides enforcing a rigid hierarchy that makes it difficult to bring complaints against those in power. Or besides covering up the actions of priests, paying out millions in lawsuit settlements, and shipping perpetrators from area to area in order to minimize negative publicity?

      I would trust the doctors in most hospitals. But if I learned that a hospital willingly hired doctors with suspended licenses, or that they used underhanded tactics to crush malpractice lawsuits, or that complaints were always ignored, why trust them then?

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    17. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh dear God.

      If you aren't seriously involved in the Church, Christianity and Catholicism are the same thing.

      If you don't believe me, ask most anyone from the Middle East or Asia what they think about the difference.

      Heck, I was a Christian and I can hardly tell the difference!

    18. Re:Trusting a Priest? by susano_otter · · Score: 2
      Don't forget to follow it up with a, "Now isn't that better? Say, you wouldn't mind giving me a big wad of cash so I can spread this message to otehrs, would you?"

      Actually, I'm doing just fine without hitting you up for cash, thanks.

      Lots of people are duped every day into supporting "feel-good" scam artists. At the same time, lots of people sensibly contribute money to organizations that do real good, full time. It sounds like you're trying to say "Christianity feels good, therefore it must be a scam."

      Meanwhile, prior to the 20th Century, someone wrote "For God so loved the world [bla bla bla] that whosoever believeth in him shall have eternal life." Even assuming that the whole thing is a huge conspiracy, I think it's pretty clear that the texts date from prior to 1900. So there you have it: believe in the salvation of humanity via Christ, and benefit. It doesn't get any more fundamental than that. And this principle was almost certainly formulated much earlier than you seem to think.

      If you don't think the problem exists, then great! I hope that works out for you. But please don't tell me I should be charging you money for the information you've received. It's not like that at all.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    19. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      I mean besides making its priests more dangerous by denying them normal sexual outlets.

      Please point me to a study suggesting that celibacy leads to pedophilia. I'm fairly confident no such thing exists, but I'll give you the opportunity to correct me.

    20. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Trust is earned. Would you mind telling me what the Catholic Church has done to deserve my trust?

      Trust is multifauceted. By acting as they did, the Catholic Chruch has gained some trust for not telling other people the details of confession, at the consequnece of a lot of trust on handling children.

      In fact, the *church* has earned quite a bit of trust, by coming down so hard on the *american branch*'s scandal.

      I would trust the doctors in most hospitals. But if I learned that a hospital willingly hired doctors with suspended licenses, or that they used underhanded tactics to crush malpractice lawsuits, or that complaints were always ignored, why trust them then?

      We're not talking about a hospital. We're talking about a multinational organization with moral purposes (that runs, among other things, hospitals) that has a proven track record of sticking to what they mean. While I'm not a Catholic, (I'm a non-denomination Christian), this scandal in no way has altered my opinion of the Catholic Priests that my friends, grandmother, and father listen to.

    21. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      Oh, and the "all you have to do is say the I-accept-Jesus prayer" is not a fundamental principle of Christianity. In fact, I don't believe that this principle was formulated prior to the 20th century.

      I believe that particular piece of dogma originated in the Renaissance, during the period of the Protestant reformation. When you've got a church that says "you need to do X, X, and X, and THEN AND ONLY THEN can you be saved," there tends to be a great big backlash against that.

      Personally, I think salvation is a two-part process. Part one is getting in contact (on some level, even if it's not concious or following the paths I would follow) with the Creator. Part two is convincing the Creator to give you a mighty big break and let you off all of the sins ("bad stuff", "crimes against God", or just the roman "stuff that pisses God off") that you have committed.

      Where organized religions, like the Catholic Church, go wrong is when they forget that they exist for step 1 only, and that step 2 is something that God is perfectly capable of dealing with Himself (or Herself, if you've got a more feminine view of that all-powerful, all-knowing, shy, just-like-man-but-not-split-or-finite thing I call Jesus Christ, the world's first hippie.)

    22. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      drat, and you're posting anonymously, so you probably won't respond to this.

      But, you wouldn't happen to have a link to collaborate your view of St. Augustine, would you?

      Or is this just one of those "King Richard was Gay" things, and everyone believes it without giving evidence.

    23. Re:Trusting a Priest? by John+Miles · · Score: 2

      Now that the story's off the front page, it's probably safe to blow off the anonymous-posting feature, an idea dating back to a time when the churches put a lot more than Slashdot karma at stake for the heretic. :)

      St. Augustine was basically the heir to St. Paul's "better chastity than marriage, better marriage than Hell" mentality. Google came up with this accurate but admittedly-one-sided summary of Christian sexual morality, http://www.al-islam.org/m_morals/chap1.htm, written by someone who has an Islamic axe to grind. I don't know much about Islam, but it's not relevant in any case: the psychosexual issues the author raises are, as far as I know, quite valid.

      My understanding is that Augustine was what Christians would call a "reformed homosexual." When the object of his affection died, it prompted his own Damascene ephiphany in which he rejected the passions of the flesh in favor of immersion in a higher spiritual calling. Nowadays, we just spend a week locked in our room playing Quake when we get jilted, but things were different back then, when intellectual and moral crises lurked around every corner.

      Unfortunately, just like Paul before him, Augustine proceeded to project his neuroses on the rest of Christendom. The Church has spent millennia cultivating a distorted sense of sexual morality and human nature, telling us that some of our most fundamental biological impulses are sinful and shameful, barely worthy of tolerance in limited circumstances (marriage) and only worthy of repression elsewhere. I have a problem with that.

      Speaking personally, I was raised in a heavily Christian (Southern Baptist) environment, albeit in a non-churchgoing family. In my youth, I spent a lot of time reading both Testaments and looking for the answers to the usual questions that pop up during adolescence and puberty. Are women a Good Thing or not? Is it OK to ask God for a new Camaro? How many times per week can I jack off without staining either my sheets or my soul? While my childhood was short on genuine moral crises, it was saturated with contradictions: what was up with all the French kissing on the church bus on the way back from the Petra concert? Why was the state of the new girl in town's virginity the chief topic of discussion at Bible camp, along with the near-theological question of who would be the first among us to settle the issue once and for all?

      The trouble was, it was easy enough for me to dismiss St. Paul as a party-pooping congenital loser, but Christ Himself was something else. He seemed like a smart guy, a fellow who really had His shit together. As the article above points out, He didn't talk much about the old in-out, in-out, but when He did, He came straight to the point. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

      That was a problem. Not much room for pubescent rationalization there, friends and neighbors.

      Eventually, I came to realize that Christ demanded I choose between my own nature as a human being, or an ideal made apparently unachievable by the biological code His own Father built into me. That kind of thinking was obviously dangerous: according to the church, it was the sort of argument you could expect when someone tried to recruit you into Satan's posse. But since I had never bought into the whole organized-religion thing to begin with, it wasn't hard for me to walk away from the whole idea of Christianity with a clear conscience. I didn't have much at stake besides the fate of my soul... which, once I realized was only a metaphorical gun held to my head by people who were flesh and blood like myself, was easy enough to get past.

      Priests of celibate orders, on the other hand, have more than their souls in this precarious moral balance. Their careers, lives, vows, and identities are inextricable from Pauline and Augustinian morality. That's what I meant by my flippant "2,000 years of chickens coming home to roost" remark. The human mind is a powerful thing; when you hold it to unreasonable or impossible standards, you shouldn't be too surprised to see it fail in catastrophic ways.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    24. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are weird. Interesting, but weird. It seems to me you are dragging your personal experience into this when it's not particularly relevant. I'm sure any number of Slashdot users can verify that it is quite possible to be an adult virgin (with or without sexual frustrations) and not abuse children or teenagers.

      When a mailman would "go postal" in the early 90's, it's legitimate to say the postal service has a responsibility to get its act together and relieve some of the pressures on its workers. But 99% of the guilt lies with actual murderers. And although the USPS environment undoubtedly contributed, it would be unjust and impolitic to describe the massacres as 100 years of USPS policy coming home to roost.

    25. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      Interesting.

      I've had more than my share of moral crisis since my childhood ended. After quite a lot of stress, I've found that religion makes a great guidestone when I listen to my own heart, rather than organized religion or organized religion's opponents. (I am, however, rather interested in both sides, which is why I discuss this so readilly.)

      Regarding The Word's word that you quoted, I interpret it a lot differently than you did. Rather than "it's adultery to think about a woman," I think it's more like "lusting after a woman and fucking her are the same sin in the eyes of God." But God (obviously) wants mankind to have sex, so there has to be a place for it.

      Thus, don't go thinking about girls in high school that don't know that you're lusting after them, and don't lust after girls that don't want you to. ;)

      Anyway, as to the article--I think the author is intentionally misnormalizing the scale of Christian sexual conduct, especially at the time of its creation.

      Rather than (celebacy=0), (chastity=-1) and (forification=-2), it's more like (chastity=+1), (celebacy=0) and (forification=-1). Chastity should be the *normal* state for people who aren't saints (but make their shoes and the babies), but celebacy is a "more holy" state than chastity.

      Just like it's "normal" to not rob someone, "wrong" to rob someone, and "holy" to give someone your money.

      Anyway, it's one of the big faults with organized religion. Things thare a "good states to be held in high regard" become, over decades "mandatory states for everyone who's not going to hell." And, of course, that sparks the "I can't live that way, so they must not really mean it" trail of thought, that quickly empties churches and, in some of those who rebel against the entire framework, sparks everyone back to the "fornification" stage that they were in before the church showed up and said "that's wrong."

      Of course, the whole issue's compounded by the fact that People Are Stupid, and so God didn't bother saying WHY the good things are good and the bad things are bad. :(

      Anyway, my final point: Thanks for the link, I agree with the organized religion part, I disagree with the "no God"/"no soul" part, and I'm always open if you just want to kill some time to talk about religion. (or MS--those evil bastards!)

    26. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Darby · · Score: 1

      . Part two is convincing the Creator to give you a mighty big break and let you off all of the sins ("bad stuff", "crimes against God", or just the roman "stuff that pisses God off") that you have committed.

      This is the really big dichotomy between myself and christians like yourself (not an insult in any way, just a generalization of this statement vs other types of christians).

      Feel free to correct my interpretation of what you're saying.
      You believe that there is an all-powerful being who created everything, who had all possible information at his disposal. So he creates us with all of our desires as they are and specifically forbids us from acting on them.
      Further, he provides with intellects that work in such a way as to require proof to accept something and then actively denies us that proof. Furthermore, he makes that blind acceptance of that unprovable thing the sole requirement for gaining salvation. So if you don't spend your entire life fighting against the nature that he put in you then you are bad?!?

      Seriously, think for a while if there is any thing, person, or institution in the world that you would even think twice about laughing in the face of if they tried to sell you such a slanted piece of crap.

      Yes, I know, he's god and he loves you.

      *If* I believed in him and *if* I thought that that was what he was all about, then I would still laugh in his face and expose him for the petty little shit he was because maybe I would burn, but at least I would have integrity.

      Look at it for a second as if his existence wasn't a given. Further assume you control some primitive tribe. Can you come up with a better way to enslave the minds of the people under your rule?

    27. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Darby · · Score: 1

      In fact, the *church* has earned quite a bit of trust, by coming down so hard on the *american branch*'s scandal.

      In point of fact they haven't done shit

      We're not talking about a hospital. We're talking about a multinational organization with moral purposes (that runs, among other things, hospitals) that has a proven track record of sticking to what they mean.

      You mean saying that god loves everybody yet condemning homosexuals even though god made them that way?
      You mean saying killing is wrong and then killing everybody they can that disagrees with them?
      You mean saying they're trying to help people and then preventing them from using *any* contraceptives thus condemning them to poverty?

      Moral purposes my left butt cheek.
      Their purpose is to expand their power structure.
      Try to come up with a (rational this time, not just spouting crap) example of their "moral purposes" that can't be shot down with a junior high school level of history.

    28. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you fucking idiot, he meant it as joke by drawing a comparison between the guy's name (priest) and a real priest.

      and too bad for you if people don't trust priest anymore because of what those few did. that's the way the world works, in case you haven't noticed. a few police officers shoot a black guy by mistake, and everyone thinks all policemen are racist until proven otherwise. a bunch of arabs bomb the NYC twin towers and everyone thinks all arabs are terrorist.

      if you think people on the whole are going to be more open minded and reasonable about such things then you have been living under a rock. perhaps that's because you spend too much time reading your stupid bible instead of the newspapers. it doesn't surprise that a lot of people draw stupid conclusions like those above, and a lot of people have a religion, such as christianity. religion (especially christianity or catholicism or whatever) go hand in hand with stupidity and gullibility, and you obviously aren't the exception.

      and no, i don't have a problem with you being a christian but i have a problem with you announcing it like its a badge of honour and getting all self-righteous and anal-retentive about it.

      once again, I FUCK YOU NOT!!!!

    29. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't all of you religious idiots see? religion is just a way for weak-minded individuals like yourself to explain things that you cannot, and make situations that are beyond your control seem like it is. can't stop the tornado that's coming? pray to god and if it doesn't rip up your house, its GOD"S GRACE!! HALLEJULAH!!! if it does, then god was teaching you a lesson? what lesson? doesn't matter, just dig up something wrong you did in the past, so you can yet another chance at self flagellation and redeem whatever it is you felt guilty about. don't you see how fucking stupid, and how much of a mind trip christianity is? from a psychologist's point of view (i'm not one so don't start jumping to conclusions), religion is a world made up by people to explain stuff they can't, etc, and jesus is nothing but an imaginery friend. the problem with it is there's no way to prove it untrue because its all a matter of opinion so unfortunately, christianity infects more and more stupid people at an alarming rate each day. not that i'm complaining, since they're stupid like yourself in the first place, but i wonder if they would have chosen christianity, if they had been given a chance at seeing what christianity really is; nothing but a big lie, albeit a very effective one. you know the reason why religious zealots are so afraid of genetic engineering and whatnot, and frequently accuse the scientists of "playing god"? once science can finally explain everything, there will be no more need for religion, assuming people can come to terms with reality and mortality that shit happens and nothing is fair. when your parents get killed in front of you when you're 14 and have to spend the rest of your life working in sweat shops, then getting mugged and killed when you're 28, god doesn't have a plan for you. life just plain sucks, so learn to face up to it. "People Are Stupid"? RIGHTO!!! you make a fine shining example! one of the first things about a person i know that can tell me a lot about their characters is whether they have a religion or not, particularly if they're christian, catholic, or mormon, etc. the lack of which, would show they have stronger moral fiber and are less prone to fits of self-delusion. and lastly, in reference to your above post, don't you already see it happening? people take the bible and form their own interpretation of it to suit their own lifestyles and beliefs, much the same way someone gets a linux distro and compiles his or her own custom kernel for it. when they try to explain to people why the bible doesn't mention the dinosaurs, they take metaphorical evidence from the bible and said oh, 7 days actually meant 7 billion years, and dinosaurs were too trivial for god to mention in his "ultimate plan". whatever in the bible is true, is then taken as hard evidence as to the irrefutable proof that the bible is the true word of god. doesn't this demonstration of double-standards, in terms of the way the bible is interpreted, show the lack of intellect of christians? before i forgot, don't bother drawing stuff from your precious bible to show me that the bible is not a work of fiction. (which like i said in another post, as been degraded to a catalyst for your pagan religion) doing so is self-defeating, the same way you can't refute the allegations of someone else, based on your own alibi. the eye-witness equivalent in this analogy is clearly lacking and can probably never be provided. religion makes a great guidestone when you listen to your own heart? you're merely succumbing to the natural human need to want to explain everything, and have everything in control. basically you can't accept the fact that our lives are really quite meaningless, and that death is death and that you just become part of the natural cycle. when shit happens its cos shit happens not because some divine being has a hand in everything that happens everywhere in the world, all the time. ditto when nice stuff happpens. there's no such thing as heaven, kiddo. whatever you have left of your life is all there is. wake up and smell the roses. and you know what? i just find it so lame of you, spelling god with a capitol G. its fucking pathetic. oh and gee, you just had to end of with an anti-microsoft (i refuse to spell microsoft with a $ either) remark. just have to be part of the slashdot crowd huh? it doesn't make you anymore smart, idiot.

    30. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't all of you religious idiots see?
      religion is just a way for weak-minded individuals like yourself to explain things that you cannot, and make situations that are beyond your control seem like it is.

      can't stop the tornado that's coming? pray to god and if it doesn't rip up your house, its GOD"S GRACE!! HALLEJULAH!!! if it does, then god was teaching you a lesson? what lesson? doesn't matter, just dig up something wrong you did in the past, so you can yet another chance at self flagellation and redeem whatever it is you felt guilty about. don't you see how fucking stupid, and how much of a mind trip christianity is?

      from a psychologist's point of view (i'm not one so don't start jumping to conclusions), religion is a world made up by people to explain stuff they can't, etc, and jesus is nothing but an imaginery friend. the problem with it is there's no way to prove it untrue because its all a matter of opinion so unfortunately, christianity infects more and more stupid people at an alarming rate each day. not that i'm complaining, since they're stupid like yourself in the first place, but i wonder if they would have chosen christianity, if they had been given a chance at seeing what christianity really is; nothing but a big lie, albeit a very effective one.

      you know the reason why religious zealots are so afraid of genetic engineering and whatnot, and frequently accuse the scientists of "playing god"? once science can finally explain everything, there will be no more need for religion, assuming people can come to terms with reality and mortality that shit happens and nothing is fair. when your parents get killed in front of you when you're 14 and have to spend the rest of your life working in sweat shops, then getting mugged and killed when you're 28, god doesn't have a plan for you. life just plain sucks, so learn to face up to it.

      "People Are Stupid"? RIGHTO!!! you make a fine shining example! one of the first things about a person i know that can tell me a lot about their characters is whether they have a religion or not, particularly if they're christian, catholic, or mormon, etc. the lack of which, would show they have stronger moral fiber and are less prone to fits of self-delusion.

      and lastly, in reference to your above post, don't you already see it happening? people take the bible and form their own interpretation of it to suit their own lifestyles and beliefs, much the same way someone gets a linux distro and compiles his or her own custom kernel for it. when they try to explain to people why the bible doesn't mention the dinosaurs, they take metaphorical evidence from the bible and said oh, 7 days actually meant 7 billion years, and dinosaurs were too trivial for god to mention in his "ultimate plan". whatever in the bible is true, is then taken as hard evidence as to the irrefutable proof that the bible is the true word of god. doesn't this demonstration of double-standards, in terms of the way the bible is interpreted, show the lack of intellect of christians?

      before i forgot, don't bother drawing stuff from your precious bible to show me that the bible is not a work of fiction. (which like i said in another post, as been degraded to a catalyst for your pagan religion) doing so is self-defeating, the same way you can't refute the allegations of someone else, based on your own alibi. the eye-witness equivalent in this analogy is clearly lacking and can probably never be provided.

      religion makes a great guidestone when you listen to your own heart? you're merely succumbing to the natural human need to want to explain everything, and have everything in control. basically you can't accept the fact that our lives are really quite meaningless, and that death is death and that you just become part of the natural cycle. when shit happens its cos shit happens not because some divine being has a hand in everything that happens everywhere in the world, all the time. ditto when nice stuff happpens. there's no such thing as heaven, kiddo. whatever you have left of your life is all there is. wake up and smell the roses.

      and you know what? i just find it so lame of you, spelling god with a capitol G. its fucking pathetic. oh and gee, you just had to end of with an anti-microsoft (i refuse to spell microsoft with a $ either) remark. just have to be part of the slashdot crowd huh? it doesn't make you anymore smart, idiot.

    31. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey ditto here!

      and i think feminism is just a social problem, what with the falling birthrates, and women who don't serve time in the military nor give birth to renew the population in developed countries.
      they're mostly a bunch of self-indulgent, self-righteous, and double standard holding bigots.

    32. Re:Trusting a Priest? by evbergen · · Score: 1

      You believe that there is an all-powerful being who created everything, who had all possible information at his disposal. So he creates us with all of our desires as they are and specifically forbids us from acting on them.
      Further, he provides with intellects that work in such a way as to require proof to accept something and then actively denies us that proof. Furthermore, he makes that blind acceptance of that unprovable thing the sole requirement for gaining salvation. So if you don't spend your entire life fighting against the nature that he put in you then you are bad?!?


      You put it nicely :) However, if you look at it a little more closely, it's not as bad as you think.

      Essentially, you seem to think it's rather cruel of God to create us with the ability to do each other wrong, the ability to reject him and with the tendency to want simple, singular statements and binary proofs, while at the same time he says we won't realise our full potential when we don't choose *not* to do those things.

      If you take this a bit further, it seems you think it's cruel of him to create you as a truly free man, who is responsible for his actions, which must be according to certain principles that are intrinsic to the way he has created things if we want to build on it further in a meaningful way.

      As a nice example: he created gravity. Now, if you step out of a window, are you then "punished" for not honoring gravity as part of his creation, or are you just experiencing the natural consequence of your own decision?

      To me, those two ways of saying it are completely interchangeable. You only have to accept that apparently God chooses not to stop you from doing things that do harm to you, your neighbor or the universe as a whole. Accepting freedom and the responsibility that comes with it is not too much to ask, is it? Or would you rather have someone else assume responsibility over you?

      What Cristianity (or better, Christ) has to offer is to take this freedom one step further: it's not through a tedious process of self-realization that you can learn to act more in harmony with the rest of creation and the Creator himself; it's through mere choice. No matter what you did, you can always choose to do it differently tomorrow.

      IMHO this is a very liberating concept, and the way I see it, this way he also frees you from all kinds of religious laws and obligations (sacrifice, paying money) that people force on each other and themselves: it's enough if you accept your freedom, your tendency to misuse it, and to start with the little things, being love of the Creator and your fellow (wo)man. That is the way to life in freedom, the way God intended it, he says.

      It's not God's responsibility that we have suppressed and enslaved each other under religious laws, discrimination, and so on. It's ours. *We* have done that. Apparently we can be power hungry animals, and history displays an endless supply of examples of that.

      But why would you think it's absurd that God, if he exists, apparently gives us freedom to do those things? It seems that he did, and he's willing to stick with it, even in the face of the worst evils we do. It's up to us to make our own choices, apparently.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
    33. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Essentially, you seem to think it's rather cruel of God to create us with the ability to do each other wrong, the ability to reject him and with the tendency to want simple, singular statements and binary proofs, while at the same time he says we won't realise our full potential when we don't choose *not* to do those things.

      Firstly, I don't think it's cruel, I think it is petty. Secondly, he doesn't say we won't reach our full potential, he says that he will send us to burn for all eternity. Huge difference. The point is he made *all* the rules. So given the space of all possible rules, he made us in such a way as to naturally act against all of his rules and then says we'll burn if we don't follow them. Then to top it off, he picks and chooses exactly who will even be presented with the rules. For example, most of the people in the world hadn't even heard of this particular god until far along in the lifespan of humanity.

      As a nice example: he created gravity. Now, if you step out of a window, are you then "punished" for not honoring gravity as part of his creation, or are you just experiencing the natural consequence of your own decision?

      This is so unrelated that I'm surprised that you would even bother presenting such a fragile straw man. Gravity can be observed and tested with repeatable affects. We can watch what happens to someone who jumps out of a window. God doesn't allow any such rationality to intrude into his sphere. No one suffers in any way for disobeying him on earth. It's only after we die that it happens so we can't even serve as an example.

      To me, those two ways of saying it are completely interchangeable.

      I hope you can see now that they are not in any way interchangable.

      If you take this a bit further, it seems you think it's cruel of him to create you as a truly free man, who is responsible for his actions, which must be according to certain principles that are intrinsic to the way he has created things if we want to build on it further in a meaningful way.

      Again, not cruel: petty, petulant, and several other very bad wholly *human* things. It's not about freedom it's about control. It gets a bit difficult to debate this rationally (for either of us) since we are working off of a different set of axioms. To you it's a given that god exists I haven't chosen to accept this axiom seeing no need for it as it adds no new information.
      I'll state again a question from my previous post:
      Look at it for a second as if his existence wasn't a given. Further assume you control some primitive tribe. Can you come up with a better way to enslave the minds of the people under your rule?

      IMHO this is a very liberating concept, and the way I see it, this way he also frees you from all kinds of religious laws and obligations (sacrifice, paying money) that people force on each other and themselves:
      The only thing it liberates you from is the said religious laws in the second half of your sentence.
      While similar religious laws existed prior to your god coming on the scene many of them were put into place as a result of your god. In fact, he created many of those repressive laws himself. I'm sure that you will say that he didn't and men did saying it was him. So follow up on this thought. If perjury in a court of law is bad, then surely misrepresenting yourself as god is even worse. So these people are acting against the interests of god. Yet these are the people who wrote the bible.
      So you have people who have completely discredited themselves in your eyes, and yet you ignore that when you accept evena single word from the bible as true. That my friend is not liberation.

      But why would you think it's absurd that God, if he exists, apparently gives us freedom to do those things? It seems that he did, and he's willing to stick with it, even in the face of the worst evils we do.
      This isn't what I find absurd. No offense intended, but there is what I have noticed to be a universal blind spot for christians. God is *all* powerful and *all* knowing. Christians generally have no problem saying this but they find it impossible to actually accept it and follow it to its conclusion. Since he made all the rules and everything else, he created it all in such a way as to send the people to hell who go there. You can talk about free will all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that he knew before he even created the universe that Billy Joe Jim Bob over there would be condemned to burn forever. In fact he created the rules in such a way as to ensure that.Yeah, yeah, I know, he (BJJB) could have chosen otherwise but that is the blind spot I'm talking about. God made the world and BJJB in such a way as to ensure that he wouldn't. This is what it means to be all powerful and knowing.
      Or to give an example of a real person take me for example. I was "created" in such a way as to make it impossible for me to submit myself to a belief system that has throughout its history been responsible for more evil than any other single entity in the history of the world. From the burning of the Library of Alexandria (the willful destruction of the single greatest repository of knowledge of the ancient world) to the destruction of the cultures of countless peoples, the burning alive of anyone who didn't *choose* to accept their enslavement Now you will say that that those were the acts of men, but ask yourself what is more reasonable:
      That an all powerful all knowing being who loves everybody created such a belief system with such potential for abuse and created the people in such a way that they would abuse it (again choice is a red herring here since he made everything in such a way as to ensure that those are the choices that would be made).
      Or, that people being what they are created the system to allow themselves to abuse it?

    34. Re:Trusting a Priest? by evbergen · · Score: 1

      Secondly, he doesn't say we won't reach our full potential, he says that he will send us to burn for all eternity. Huge difference.

      Agreed. I don't believe that He said that himself. If even a human parent could be more loving and forgiving for a child, I find it impossible to think that our Creator could not.

      I think that each time humanity (organized religion) says "If ... then God will punish you with ...", we're putting ourselves on his throne so to speak. I'd say (and Christ seems to agree there) that he's very well capable of deciding that for himself, thank you very much. Add to that the assumption of God always doing perfect justice (you couldn't have defended yourself better than he would do for you), and of his perfect compassion, and you'll see there's indeed little ground for such statements from the church. I reject them just as you do.

      The point is he made *all* the rules. So given the space of all possible rules, he made us in such a way as to naturally act against all of his rules and then says we'll burn if we don't follow them. Then to top it off, he picks and chooses exactly who will even be presented with the rules.

      That may be what some churches have been telling, and indeed, probably in order to gather more power and control. But the self-righteousness contained in that kind of statement is so blatantly not Christian, I don't even know where to begin. Apparently lots of people fell for "your neighbor will burn, but *you* will be saved". Sadly.

      To you it's a given that god exists I haven't chosen to accept this axiom seeing no need for it as it adds no new information.

      This is an important one. To me, the existence of God is scientifically neutral; the only requirement science has is that a consistent mathematical model of our measurable perceptions be built. Apparently, we've been able so far to build a fairly decent mathematical model of the universe without having to introduce God into the equasion.

      You are right, the assumption that God exists adds no information to the mathematical model, because its only requirement is describing measurements consistency, not describing life, truth, love, freedom, and so forth.

      But that doesn't say a thing. It only says that God's universe is consistent enough for it to be described with mathematics to a large extent, or at least statistically when you consider fluid dynamics or quantum mechanics (it gets a bit difficult though when we want to predict what happens to an individual electron when presented with two identical choices; we're not able to calculate that, in a very fundamental sense. cf Heisenberg).

      I've just chosen to think that there's life outside the mathematical model, as that purposedly stops at questions that are outside of its domain, such as what the reason of the universe's existence is, what life is, why we are here, and what our purpose is.

      Apparently, you cannot answer these questions by merely modeling the measurable universe in a mathematical way.

      Look at it for a second as if his existence wasn't a given. Further assume you control some primitive tribe. Can you come up with a better way to enslave the minds of the people under your rule?

      Hardly. But if I assume God doesn't exist for a moment, that only tells me that we have the tendency to need power and control over others, and that we like to abuse religion for that because it is a powerful thing.

      But the same statement holds if you *do* assume that God exists. It also doesn't say a thing about his nature, only about ours. He created us, you say, therefore our nature is his "fault"? That puts all responsibility for our "right of the jungle"-type of actions on God. I'm sure that to the extent that that's fair, God is able to "reason" the same way, and be even more forgiving than you are to yourself. However, I don't think that *all* human actions are *inevitable* in that sense, that we're enslaved by our animal side. I'd like to give the possibilities and freedom of the mind a bit more credit.

      The only thing it liberates you from is the said religious laws in the second half of your sentence.

      That's the most imporant part, but there's also other things, such as not suffering under the burden of guilt that we put upon ourselves and each other.

      I see the concept as being able to realize that you can effortlessly choose to do differently tomorrow, if you truly realize what your current actions mean. It's very empowering; it does away with you having to justify yourself to yourself, finding reasons why it was inevitable that you did those things. Because *that* is slavery my friend, to nothing but fate.

      Christ goes against fate, and says that you have choice. God went against fate when he created things, if he hadn't, the big bang wouldn't have occurred, according to the scientific models we derive from what we see in our universe today. The model sees no reason for Gods existance, but it sees no reason for the universe to exist either.

      While similar religious laws existed prior to your god coming on the scene many of them were put into place as a result of your god. In fact, he created many of those repressive laws himself. I'm sure that you will say that he didn't and men did saying it was him.

      Yes, that's my only way out of believing that he created people capable of mercy and compassion, without having those qualities himself. For me, *that's* impossible to believe.

      So follow up on this thought. If perjury in a court of law is bad, then surely misrepresenting yourself as god is even worse. So these people are acting against the interests of god. Yet these are the people who wrote the bible.

      Yes. I'm sure this has happened, and I don't view the bible as *just* the word of God. It's his inspiration mixed with our way of putting things, which can reflect our own agendas sometimes.

      But that's no different when looking at the state the world itself in (a bit polluted here and there); the result is a mixture of God's creation and our own choices. To me, the bible is no different, and arguably it reflects even more of us and less of God than eg. a tree or a beautiful sky. But that doesn't say that there isn't a great deal wisdom to be found there.

      So you have people who have completely discredited themselves in your eyes, and yet you ignore that when you accept even single word from the bible as true. That my friend is not liberation.

      I accept it as words from people. Centuries worth of people thinking about God, experiencing God's proximity, who were inspired by him. How does that enslave my mind?

      God is *all* powerful and *all* knowing. Christians generally have no problem saying this but they find it impossible to actually accept it and follow it to its conclusion.

      I've seen that problem too, but chose to do otherwise, rejecting everything that contradicts with it, including God "changing is mind under our pressure" at times and so forth. But let's continue.

      Since he made all the rules and everything else, he created it all in such a way as to send the people to hell who go there.

      That's what my example about gravity was all about. Does he "send" you to the ground, painfully, if you step out of a window, or is that just a natural consequence of the way the universe works? I don't know. It's the same thing I guess. However, I do assume that he has better sense of justice than we are even capable of. If even we are capable of arguing why this is not doing these people justice, I'm sure God can do even better, as he knows those people more intimately than you and I do.

      You can talk about free will all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that he knew before he even created the universe that Billy Joe Jim Bob over there would be condemned to burn forever.

      Well, no, not if you assume perfect freedom to choose, then he *wouldn't* know in advance that BJJB would be "condemned" (whatever that means, I don't assume hell as literally as you seem to do - I'd like to imagine that when you die, there's a flash of realization of what your life meant. I'm sure that can be hell).

      How does this relate with the concept that God is eternal, and knows the future, you ask? Well, I say that he encompasses *all possible futures* (I'm sure you know the many worlds theory from quantum mechanics). But that doesn't take away our freedom; it doesn't pre-determine what you and I will do.

      In fact he created the rules in such a way as to ensure that. Yeah, yeah, I know, he (BJJB) could have chosen otherwise but that is the blind spot I'm talking about. God made the world and BJJB in such a way as to ensure that he wouldn't.

      That last sentence implies that BJJB is a puppet on God string. If that were the case, then God cannot be forgiven for letting the holocaust or Pol Pot happen, to name a few things. I don't think that's the case. God didn't create us with a *necessity* to do this or that. We are created free. That's the only way out of it.

      I was "created" in such a way as to make it impossible for me to submit myself to a belief system that has throughout its history been responsible for more evil than any other single entity in the history of the world.

      Well, I think you underestimate your possibilities ;-), but at least you trust yourself not to submit yourself to the system that *is* responsible for that evil: our tendency to want power over others. That's a good quality I'd say. Doesn't say much about God though.

      Or, that people being what they are created the system to allow themselves to abuse it?

      Yes, that's what I think too. Or at least we perverted it. I don't think that God created any religious laws, institutions, requirements, hate, whatever.

      I think he creates life.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
    35. Re:Trusting a Priest? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Add to that the assumption of God always doing perfect justice (you couldn't have defended yourself better than he would do for you), and of his perfect compassion, and you'll see there's indeed little ground for such statements from the church. I reject them just as you do.

      This sounds like a very radical stance for a christian. No, I'm sorry, bad apples spoiling the bunch and all that. Your statements are actually quite in line with what I have heard that Jesus said. I'm amazed at the things some self-described christians say usually quoting some obscure passage in the old testament and ignoring the fact that the new testament trumps that (at least that is my understanding). The whole godhatesfags thing and all that sort of thing. Couldn't you trademark "Christian" and sue those jackasses who claim to be and clearly aren't ;-)

      You are right, the assumption that God exists adds no information to the mathematical model, because its only requirement is describing measurements consistency, not describing life, truth, love, freedom, and so forth.

      I wasn't really clear on what I meant here. I wasn't referring the mathematical model when I spoke of adding information. What I meant was that When you ask the question, "Where did we/the universe/ come from?". My answer is, "I don't know". Your answer is "God made it". At this point I am done answering, but your answer creates a new question, "Where did god come from?" Now, the only completely true answer is "I don't know". This is the sense in which I meant that god adds no new information. Any other answer is more or less equivalent to "I don't know". The most common one given that I am aware of is, "He's always been here", or something to that affect. This also adds no new information since that answer could just as easily been applied to the previous question. It just seems to me that the only real purpose it serves (besides the evil purposes of bad people we've already discussed) is to push back the ignorance of origins a level.

      I've just chosen to think that there's life outside the mathematical model, as that purposedly stops at questions that are outside of its domain, such as what the reason of the universe's existence is, what life is, why we are here, and what our purpose is.

      I am not saying that there aren't things that science will never be able to understand. Then again, I'm not saying that I have the answer either. You are apparently satisfied that you do.
      Your answer doesn't work for me because of all the holes I see in it.

      But the same statement holds if you *do* assume that God exists. It also doesn't say a thing about his nature, only about ours.

      I would say that the whole "man was created in god's image" thing would indicate that it *does* say something about his nature.

      I see the concept as being able to realize that you can effortlessly choose to do differently tomorrow, if you truly realize what your current actions mean. It's very empowering; it does away with you having to justify yourself to yourself, finding reasons why it was inevitable that you did those things. Because *that* is slavery my friend, to nothing but fate.

      I completely agree with you here. What I don't see, is why a god is required for this.

      Christ goes against fate, and says that you have choice. God went against fate when he created things, if he hadn't, the big bang wouldn't have occurred,according to the scientific models we derive from what we see in our universe today. The model sees no reason for Gods existance, but it sees no reason for the universe to exist either.

      But faith sees no reason for god's existence either. It takes, "There is a god", as the only axiom. Different faiths add different axioms based on the particulars of that faith.
      To use the mathematical example, Axioms restrict freedom. Once you have chosen your axioms, you have created a framework in which to work and many beautiful things can be done within it. Without these restrictions, anything could be shown as true, so they are necessary in this context. There has been a lot of thought given to the question of whether we are using the "right" axioms leading to some real mind blowers like Godel's incompleteness theorem.
      Going back to the "real" world, your one axiom, creates restrictions. I can't give you a specific such as, "Think about 'x'. That's right you can't, but I can".
      I fail to see how it adds anything beautiful either. Sure, I can see how it might be nice to believe that once you die you'll be eternally happy, or whatever. But what I also see is that this is also the ideal construction to enslave people. "Sure I'm completely fucking you over in this life, but just be a good little tool and god will make it all up to you later."

      I see the concept as being able to realize that you can effortlessly choose to do differently tomorrow, if you truly realize what your current actions mean. It's very empowering; it does away with you having to justify yourself to yourself, finding reasons why it was inevitable that you did those things. Because *that* is slavery my friend, to nothing but fate.

      I agree with you completely, but I fail to see why a god is required.

      I accept it as words from people. Centuries worth of people thinking about God, experiencing God's proximity, who were inspired by him. How does that enslave my mind?

      I don't believe I said it enslaved your mind, I just said that it is not liberation. I think the context in which I said that was in reference to the structures created around it. I am at least as liberated as you in that way, yet I don't share your belief.

      That's what my example about gravity was all about. Does he "send" you to the ground, painfully, if you step out of a window, or is that just a natural consequence of the way the universe works?

      This is where what I said earlier about it being difficult to discuss this rationally given our different axioms comes in.
      Gravity is natural (assumes no god)
      God's laws are an arbitrary decision by him (assumes god).

      However, I do assume that he has better sense of justice than we are even capable of. If even we are capable of arguing why this is not doing these people justice, I'm sure God can do even better, as he knows those people more intimately than you and I do.

      Presumably, he knows them more intimately than they do themselves since he created them. So he arbitrarily decided on some rules, and then created a given person in such a way as to guarantee they would break them. Omniscience and Omnipotence requires this.

      Well, no, not if you assume perfect freedom to choose, then he *wouldn't* know in advance that BJJB would be "condemned"
      See above, then he isn't all knowing, hence not god (at least according to any definition I have heard.)

      I don't assume hell as literally as you seem to do

      I don't actually assume hell. I don't, in fact, believe that there is such a place. Nonetheless, your point is taken. It's just that that seems to be the "standard" belief (whatever that means).

      How does this relate with the concept that God is eternal, and knows the future, you ask? Well, I say that he encompasses *all possible futures* (I'm sure you know the many worlds theory from quantum mechanics). But that doesn't take away our freedom; it doesn't pre-determine what you and I will do.

      This leads to two different outcomes that I can see:
      1) Once I reach the end, all possibilities collapse and I'm left with the one path that I chose. In this case god still knew prior to creating the universe which one I would take.
      2) There are infinitely many of me in which case the whole concept of choice and freedom is moot since I make all choices.

      If that were the case, then God cannot be forgiven for letting the holocaust or Pol Pot happen, to name a few things. I don't think that's the case.

      I agree, that if it were the case he couldn't be forgiven. I disagree in that I think it is the case, or would if I believed in him.

      We are created free. That's the only way out of it.

      That's not the only way out of it. That's the only way to maintain the consistency of your beliefs. We can well be free to make our choices, but that doesn't mean that everything wasn't made in such a way as to ensure things would happen that way. It certainly requires a bizarre definition of free though.
      If this definition contradicts the one you're using, then the problem lies elsewhere.
      Since your system only has one axiom, well...

      Well, I think you underestimate your possibilities ;-)

      I certainly hope not, but you never know.

      I don't think that God created any religious laws, institutions

      Sure.

      requirements,
      "So that he that believes" sure sounds like a requirement to me.

      hate,
      Since there was nothing before he created it this seems strange. Putting it on man or satan or whatever is again just pushing it back a level.
      The same could be said for the above laws and institutions, but there is a real difference. Those are tangible. Hate exists only within our minds and he created *all* of their ability to function.
      It's like the joke by I forget which comedian:
      "Why is it that sports stars always thank Jesus for their good plays but never mention him when things go wrong. I mean can you imagine them interviewing the running back who lost the game in the last seconds, 'Yeah, I was doing pretty well until Jesus made me fumble'".
      If he created everything he created *everything*

      whatever.

      Well... ;-)

  4. Hmmm by Devil's+BSD · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Say, doesn't that guy look kinda like CowboyNeal?

    --
    I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
    1. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no

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

      cowboy neil, i dunno about that, but come to my website. you need it like a crackhead needs crack.

      http://jake_blade.tripod.com

    3. Re:Hmmm by flikx · · Score: 1

      No, he looks more like Eric Scott Raymond.

      --
      One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
  5. Here's a related link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find this fascinating.

    http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville /s tories/1999/03/15/story1.html

  6. He's an Inventor(tm) by dattaway · · Score: 5, Funny

    He received a patent on his black box, so it must true and not a hoax, right?

    Another reason why patents are worthless pieces of paper.

    1. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by danamania · · Score: 1

      Not only that, y'all read about it on the internet. What more convincing do you need...

    2. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by yintercept · · Score: 2

      Even if his invention was mumbo jumbo, having a patent could have put him in a position of extracting payments from real scientists who worked developed DSL and other ways to increase bandwidth for regular telephone lines. Makes you wonder how many patents are really just cons put on file.

    3. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Yes, in that picture, he is laughing at the US patent office... That's one thing he has in common with the slashdot readership.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by linzeal · · Score: 0, Troll

      His magic box is a glory hole and he sticking his penius in it right now, look at that face.

    5. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone else surprised that this was a white guy? When I first started reading it, I figured for sure this was a jiggaboo.

    6. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! A genius with a penius!

    7. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by cornflux · · Score: 1

      I wonder: did he really get an actual patent? or did he have a fake one, just for show? I don't recall the article actually mentioning a patent in detail, just the picture.

      that would go along pretty well with the rest of this shit.

    8. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by 26199 · · Score: 1

      Hmm... you can get a patent on anything, really... it doesn't mean it's right... or even sane... if the patent office had to check all the claims, it'd take a whole lot longer and cost a whole lot more...

      They just check that there aren't any existing patents on the same thing, as far as I'm aware...

      I've read that somebody patented attaching wind-turbine type generators to the top of your car to gain back energy and make the car more efficient.

    9. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nigger? Claiming to have invented something? Hah! No VC, no matter how gullible, would ever hand over money to a nigger. Not even if the nigger is using a trademark beginning with "i-" or "e-" or ending with ".com".

    10. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      No, the patent gives him the right to sue other hoaxers out of existance, since he was obviously there first. :)

    11. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2

      Hey, is there a patent on the process of separating fools from their money by means of comvincing hoaxes? Quick, gotta call my lawyer!

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    12. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by MisterBlister · · Score: 3, Funny

      He's really fat, geeky and probably smells overripe as well, three other things he has in common with a lot of Slashdotters.

    13. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by jx100 · · Score: 1

      oh, I am not fat

    14. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am

    15. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Even if he is a Nazi fucktard, he has a point.


      Bullshit.


      How many Black inventors have you seen? How many Black .com millionaires? How many Black CEO's or CTO's? How many Black network admins (BOFHs) for that matter?


      Gee I don't know stupid Nazi apologist, why don't you try checking here? Or here?? Or here??? As for Black CEO's, why not try reading (if you can) THIS?! As for Black CTO's, well, I'm sure that the National Society of Black Engineers could find one or two for you. Aw, what's the use--no matter what Black people achieve in this country, we'll always just be "niggers" to the likes of you. Fortunately most white people aren't as fucked up as you and your brainless friend apparently are. Burn in Hell.

    16. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by Darby · · Score: 1

      I've read that somebody patented attaching wind-turbine type generators to the top of your car to gain back energy and make the car more efficient.

      Does the second law absolutely throw this out, or is it theoretically possible? I mean it could generate electricity, but there would be drag on the car, friction in the components etc. but it's not really a closed system either. Any ThermoDynamiGeeks care to comment?

    17. Re:He's an Inventor(tm) by Darby · · Score: 1

      Hey, is there a patent on the process of separating fools from their money by means of comvincing hoaxes?

      Damn. If you could get it your only problem would be figuring out the problems associated with making more money than it is possible for the world to produce.

  7. patent by j09824 · · Score: 5, Informative

    You can find the patent here. It's completely bogus. Any patent examiner with a minimum background in electrical engineering should have thrown this out, and anybody investing millions of dollars in it should have had it checked out by someone who actually knows something about electrical engineering. This is really no different from the patent and investment follies of the Internet bubble.

    1. Re:patent by ciole · · Score: 2

      This is really no different from the patent and investment follies of the Internet bubble.

      No kidding. It's just like emails that delete themselves, and all those companies with supposedly 'unbreakable' proprietary encryption. i remember when word of this guy first spread - i thought, he can magically compress video but he won't tell anyone how? Mmmhmm.

      Charisma really has to be the secret ingredient. i not only couldn't have pulled this scam, i can't even fast-talk my way to extended deadlines.

    2. Re:patent by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

      Its a shame the us patent system is becoming a rubber stamp factory.

    3. Re:patent by mfos.org · · Score: 1

      Except on the examination to become a patent clerk, they don't ask you if you know the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

    4. Re:patent by Slash+Veteran · · Score: 1

      don't forget about perpetual motion machines and breakthrough compression algorithms that promise to compress random data. Snake oil.

    5. Re:patent by psychosis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Makes you wish you had a patent on rubber stamps, eh?

    6. Re:patent by SagSaw · · Score: 1

      From the patent:

      "43. A process of transmitting a video signal over a communication link (17) in accordance with claim 42 including the step of superimposing each component of said composite video signal onto one said reference tone having a frequency of between -40Hz and 3600 Hz."

      Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is not such thing as a negative frequency. (the -40 and 3600Hz bit dosen't seem to be relative to another frequency) This should have been a dead giveaway that there needed to be some serious investigation into the patent.

      --
      Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
    7. Re:patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is really no different
      from the patent and investment follies of the Internet bubble.


      I agree. It's easy to look back and say the investors were monumentally foolish. Maybe they were, but it's still nothing compared to the hundreds of millions that investors poured into VA Linux. I guess greed makes it hard to think straight.

    8. Re:patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFAIK, the patent system has never required a working model. Back in the 1800's people used to patent perpetual motion machines all the time. What makes a patent bad is that it covers an obvious idea, not a ridiculous idea.

    9. Re:patent by phyxeld · · Score: 2, Informative
      Persons responsible for approving this joke of a patent:
      Primary Examiner: Kuntz; Curtis A.
      Assistant Examiner: Eng; George
      --
      __
      Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
    10. Re:patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Negative frequencies don't exist, you're right, but for some reason they are theoretically useful. I just don't remember how.

    11. Re:patent by ChrisKoehler · · Score: 0

      His last name is Kuntz......hehe

    12. Re:patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are dealing with frequencies in the complex domain (I.E. e^jw) negative frequencies must exist. It arrises from the fact that any real signal in the complex domain has a negative and positive component. The negative component just happens to be a mirror of the positive component.

    13. Re:patent by penguinboy · · Score: 2

      Perhaps that's just a typo? All the other ocurrences of that phrase just say "between 40Hz and 3600 Hz". It seems like a relatively easy typo for a typist to make, given the frequency with which "-40 dbm" appears.

    14. Re:patent by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      That's not true. Working models were originally required, but they scrapped that when they ran into space and logistical limitations. Plus, requiring a working model conflicts with the business model of the patent office.

    15. Re:patent by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

      Working models were required. Right now they arent but there still is an enablement requirement.

      And if the invention does not work the patent cannot pass the enablement requirement. So invention that do not work should not be given patents. Patent examiners are supposed to understand from the description if the invention will work or not. If they dont understand they can ask for inspections, or just deny the patent application.

      Unfortunately you have to wonder if today the patent office is able or willing to really check whether the inventions will actually work.

      And i am not really blaming examiners. The way they are organized they are required to examine an application in several hours, and it is pretty much impossible to do what is required in that time.

    16. Re:patent by crystalplague · · Score: 1

      I remember somebody successfully patented the "circular mobility facilitation device"...

      aka the wheel

    17. Re:patent by shepd · · Score: 2

      Mayabe the examinator havening been named George problem ??

      Or maybe too bee probeleme off brain workening not correct?

      :-)

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    18. Re:patent by usr122122121 · · Score: 1
      i'm sure someone here will appreciate the schematics! I'm really surprised that people bought into this so much...

      I'm sure a lot of high-level executives are under a bit of fire now!

      --

      -braxton
    19. Re:patent by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 1

      Of course not: we can't be discriminating against topologists, now can we? ;-)

    20. Re:patent by evilpenguin · · Score: 2

      My old man was an electrical engineer. He and a ham radio buddy of his wrote a complex and detailed article about the problem of spectrum congestion. The suggested using the negative frequency spectrum (a joke, obviously). They included diagrams show how you bury your yagi and stick the ground rod up in the air. It was very geek funny.

      Personally, I have always wanted to write a detailed RFC for implementing ARP on smoke-signal links. Someday when I have nothing to do...

    21. Re:patent by Darby · · Score: 1

      Of course not: we can't be discriminating against topologists, now can we? ;-)

      At least a topologist can tell the difference between his ass and *two* holes in the ground.

  8. If it seems to good to be true... by jred · · Score: 1

    It usually is. Suckers. I should've come up w/ this scam. I'm tired of being broke & having to work for a living...

    --

    jred
    I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    1. Re:If it seems to good to be true... by CheechBG · · Score: 2

      yeah, well, there is a pretty long statute of limitations on conspiracy, at least you don't have the looming threat of hard time in a federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison...

    2. Re:If it seems to good to be true... by jred · · Score: 1

      In the article, it appears as though he's pretty much going to get away with it. At the very least, it seems he's set his wife up to take most of the blame/ legal ramifications.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    3. Re:If it seems to good to be true... by lamont116 · · Score: 1

      White collar criminals generally get to go to federal "a set of tennis followed by nine holes of golf" prison camp. The other ones that you mentioned are generally reserved for urban drug dealers.

  9. Uh... patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Madison Priest shows a patent certificate issued by the U.S. government for his magic box technology. Priest said the box could transmit data much faster than any existing system, and could do it through an ordinary household telephone line.

    Uh.

    If this guy has a patent certificate, can't any of us, you know, go down to the patent office and *read his patent*? I mean, that's the point of the patent office, you get a temporary monopoly on your innovation in exchange for which you have to tell EVERYONE exactly how it works.

    I'm looking around the patent server trying to find anything with this guy's name on it, and i haven't found anything yet.. maybe i'm using this thing wrong? Don't you have to get the inventor name exactly right? What's this guy's middle initial?

  10. Hilarious (as long as you weren't an investor) by Mr+Krinkle · · Score: 1

    It just goes to show how easy it is to scam people when they want to believe.
    Think of all the things people are willing to buy into because they think it will make them tons of money. Now think of all the times this things turn out to be cons. You would think people would learn buy now to be a little more skeptical. I know I would never give my money to someone that "they overlooked Priest's demand -- his paranoia, even -- that no one so much as touch a keyboard."
    Then again I did buy Ericsson stock. Oh well I guess I should practice what I preach.. Wait heres this company called Enron...

    --
    I am 31337 or something.
  11. huh? by elchulopadre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it just me, or is the "it got destroyed in a car accident / plane crash / flood / lightning bolt from Zeus" excuse the grown-up version of "my dog ate my homework"?

    1. Re:huh? by sheean.nl · · Score: 1

      no, no, no, it'snt "my dog ate my homework" anymore, it's,

      kid (and Linux-geek): "A PC-virus erased all my homework!!!!"
      teacher: "OMG, wait a sec. Aren't you running Linux?"
      kid (and Linux-geek): "ehm..."

      just makes me think of how stupid people can be, like people are believing:

      >"my prototype was destroyed in a plane-crash" "ehm"

      --

      If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
    2. Re:huh? by sheean.nl · · Score: 1

      whoops, should have been:

      just makes me think of how stupid people can be, like people are believing:

      "my prototype was destroyed in a plane-crash"
      "what plane crash?"
      "ehm"

      --

      If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
    3. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but if he only used that excuse once with each investor, how are they to know it's a lie? When you were a kid, you could get away with that once a year. Maybe twice.

    4. Re:huh? by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 2
      No, any true Linux-geek kid would say:

      "My dog r00ted my box & rm -rf /'ed it"!

    5. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you've not heard the story of
      the fall of SLS - SoftLanding Linux Systems?

      SLS was the predecessir to slackware and
      the maintainer was a bit difficult at times
      as well. At one point I believe he said that
      his pressing of new cd's was stolen out
      of his car.

      Slackware eventually took over and straightned
      the mess out after pat v. rewrote the installation
      scripts (the sls guy claimed copyright on them
      and refused to allow their reuse)

  12. From now on by tux-sucks · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'll never trust a guy over 300 pounds.

  13. They're not the only ones who haven't researched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The physical limitations on bandwidth for a piece of copper (as with almost every other material used in telecom) are staggeringly huge. The practical limits on bandwidth are from what's hooked onto the ends of the piece of copper.

  14. Technical infeasibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly like that Pixelon thing. Some guy claims to have an answer to an utterly unsolveable and technically infeasible problem. (Like getting fast speeds over dialup, and streaming full quality NTSC video over a 28.8 modem. Any competent techie would be skeptical of this.) Then they exploit a bunch of rich suckers who know nothing about said technology.

  15. Bah by delta407 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can transmit video in realtime over a standard phone line -- it's called DSL. Additionally, I can even stream video over a modem, 512x512 @ 30 FPS as listed in the patent (even though TVs aren't square).

    How about solid black? I'm thinking a 9600 baud modem can do that, depending on the compression.

    1. Re:Bah by psaltes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But could you do that in 1994, which is when he started showing his 'demonstrations' to people?

    2. Re:Bah by cryptogryphon · · Score: 1

      Apparently BT could in 1992.

    3. Re:Bah by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      But could you do that in 1994, which is when he started showing his 'demonstrations' to people?

      I can certainly stream video over copper wires - it's called a T1; they use 2 pairs instead of 1.

      To take it further, if you can run the video off of half a T1, then you could service 2 houses per pipe (with a phone line using a 64k slice when in use). The only reason we don't is probably that the phone company has no motivation to do so, as it would upset their revenue model and most likely destroy their nice fat T1 margins.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  16. You'd think someone would have figured it out by prof187 · · Score: 1

    With all of the tech-savvy people around, you'd figure that *someone* would have gotten suspicious and done some investigating of their own. I'm also surprised that when he failed to put out a physical prototype, the media companies didn't automatically pull out, figuring it was a hoax that he could put them out of business with this "magic box." If I were Priest, I'd be sure to watch my back as there are most likely some very disgruntled associates.

    --

    My other sig is an import.
    1. Re:You'd think someone would have figured it out by bilbobuggins · · Score: 1
      With all of the tech-savvy people around

      Apparently you don't work in management/investments...

  17. Wanting to believe by Alien54 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    wouldn't they have realized that there are physical limitations to a POTS line's bandwidth?

    I thought that the POTS line bandwidth was to some degree limited by other things like filtering.

    Otherwise things like DSL wouldn't really work.

    (off on a tangent) I recall many years (1970s?) ago how they did (and maybe still do) broadcasts in Boston of Boston Symphony concerts at TangleWood in the Berkshires, over 100 mile away. They had recordings of the original source, they had the signal at the end of the phone line, and they knew what the difference was. They merely amplified the signal at the source end to compensate for the losses, making sure to not clip the signals. Result at the end in Boston was a signal completely acceptable for FM Stereo broadcasts.

    So I can see if you are not completely expert in the technology, being able to make up your own examples, and talking yourself into believing that Certain Limitations had been exceeded.

    Heck, Look at the history of the dialup modem, going from teletype speeds to 56k, far exceeding original expectations.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Wanting to believe by norton_I · · Score: 5, Informative

      POTS is, among other things, limited by the resoultion of the ADC at the telco. Since you telephone signal goes into a 64 kbps digital channel there, you cannot get any more than 64 kbps out of the analog end. DSL requires the telco to install new hardware that splits the high frequency and low freqency components, sends one to the phone connection and one to the DSL hardware.

      Even so, noise, loss, and crosstalk are all problems for DSL causing it to be limited range, especially for the high bandwidth versions. In addition, equipment installed to prevent ground loops and improve the quality of audio freqnecy transmission, especially in older or long distance phone runs wasn't designed to pass high frequency and can wreak havoc on DSL. None of these problems have to do with the wire itself, though. Copper has plenty of bandwidth, the purpose of coax and so forth is to decrease losses and interference.

      But it sounds like this guy was claiming to jam several megabits of data through the 64 kbit phone switch, which is obviously impossible.

    2. Re:Wanting to believe by cananian · · Score: 2
      The tanglewood "phone line" is most likely a "dry copper pair" (see Cringely's pulpit) with no phone-company filtering done. This is just 100 miles of copper wire connecting the Berkshires to Boston. With enough amplification, etc, I'm sure radio-quality analog audio transmission is perfectly possible.

      That's very different from transmitting the signal over a "POTS line" or a phone call, though.

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
    3. Re:Wanting to believe by Slash+Veteran · · Score: 3, Funny
      But it sounds like this guy was claiming to jam several megabits of data through the 64 kbit phone switch, which is obviously impossible

      You obviously missed the fact that he was using zero point energy combined with low energy physics. These two symbiotic technologies use the 64 kbit switch as an multiplying amplifier, effectively increasing available bandwidth by a factor of 65536. That converts an ordinary DSL line from 1.5Mbps to 98.3Tbps.

    4. Re:Wanting to believe by Shelled · · Score: 2

      This was probably no more than a standard program line, common in radio for decades. In the past it was a series of amplifiers with adjustable equalization interconected with a few miles of unloaded (the filtering you mentioned, a passive resonant filter placed on the line to boost the voice presence range at the expense of higher frequencies) copper wire. On long hauls most telcos now convert to digital PCM at a nearby central office and use analogue amplification for the last mile either end. My guess is that the 70's Tanglewood circuit isn't a good example as it would have likely covered most of the distance by analogue microwave.

  18. Bad investments by altinsel · · Score: 1

    I too have dumped many a dollar into entrepreneurs claiming to have a 'magic box'.

    They usually delay on delivery of the goods... but I keep the faith alive. Sex is after all, the holy grail of geekdom.

    If it is a scam, I concede it truly is a beautiful one.

    "...and you ou will feel it, deep down in your pants." -Leon Phelps

    1. Re:Bad investments by bcaulf · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you didn't get a Funny out of that.

  19. Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof.... by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Informative

    If anyone shows you a "magic box" but won't let you touch it, change the setup of the demonstration, or suggest other ways to test it, RUN !

    This is a classic bit of snake oil - "I have this wonderful thing, and you can get a piece of it, but DON'T GO BACK THERE!"

    That otherwise intelligent people fell for this just goes to show how most of us don't always act logically all the time.

    Besides - pushing video over CAT-3 isn't hard: you just need enough OOMPH to deal with the attenuation, which over a few feet is not so bad. I've seen little boxes you can buy that allow you to send a VCR's output to another room over 100 feet of little thin zip-cord - all they are is a balun (balanced to unbalanced transformer) that matches the 75 ohm output of the VCR to the wire.

    It's pushing that same signal over MILES of cable while somebody else is pushing a different signal over a different pair of wires in the same bundle without interfering with each other that's the tricky bit. Solve that with enough signal to noise ratio to allow multi-megabit transmission, and you will be rich. You also will be violating half a dozen laws of physics, but....

  20. people believed this guy? by krs-one · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Priest, a 40-something ex-con who dropped out of high school in rural Citra, had devised his invention just a year or so earlier."

    My respect for Intel just went down a notch for believing this guy who has a record like this.

    -Vic

    1. Re:people believed this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shareholder action, sue intel !

    2. Re:people believed this guy? by penguinboy · · Score: 2

      It wasn't Intel that indested in this nut, but rather a company that Intel later bought up.

    3. Re:people believed this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ex-con I do have a problem with, but formal education holds no monopoly on genius, invention, or intelligence.

    4. Re:people believed this guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure that Intel had many very qualified engineers who told anyone who asked that this was a load of bunk but the pointy-haired bosses didn't care, the pointy-haired bosses could only think of how this would make them a boatload of cash off of stock options and such and it's the pointy-haired bosses who get to sign the checks. It is also a demonstration of how in the US there is a contempt for those with an education, that the pointy-haired bosses would value the opinion of an obvious flim-flam artist over their own people with a college education in the sciences.

  21. What the heck? by Enonu · · Score: 2

    Blockbuster? Intel? Wouldn't these companies be rich enough to hire engineers and physicists who could tell you flat out that it's impossible?

    So what's the real answer? Given a telephone wire and optimum conditions, what's the theoretical maxiumum speed that data can be transfered at?

    1. Re:What the heck? by SirRichardPumpaloaf · · Score: 0, Troll

      The Slashdot headline was totally misleading, as usual. Nowhere in the article does it say that Intel itself invested anything in this guy, they simply bought a company that had previously given him some money. I also don't see anything about Orrin Hatch being taken in, just that he met the guy once, and it was Ted Turner's son that was duped, not Ted himself. Slashdot, your one-stop shop for yellow journalism!

    2. Re:What the heck? by topham · · Score: 2

      Very few experts will say something is impossible. If they are truely experts they may have seen the impossible done repeatedly. Sure, they may be able to understand it after it is done, but people do come up with new things and most Experts acknowledge they don't know EVERYTHING about a subject.

      That said, I still can't believe people fell for it.

    3. Re:What the heck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is back in highschool again. You often have the comley business people assume they are smart enough and they just did not put in the time(only a geek would do that). They can cut a deal and just leave the pesky details to the geeks. I have been told I get lost in all those "bit and bytes" when asked to do truely bone headed things and I am sure I am not alone. One of the DBAs came out of a meeting not too long ago laughing over someone's comment "We are not going to use SMTP to communicate over the internet because it is unrealiable; we will use Outlook". If it was even remotely feasable .... The big companies ignore technical advice from their own people all the time. They don't need to do the reseach don't you know? This really is nothing new.

    4. Re:What the heck? by WetCat · · Score: 1

      In 1990, I heard the resolution: the modems will be unable to have speed more than 14400 on a 2 wire line...

    5. Re:What the heck? by zenyu · · Score: 2

      Given a telephone wire and optimum conditions, what's the theoretical maxiumum speed that data can be transfered at?

      The theoretical maximum would be more than enough to transfer all the digital files in existance in the blink of an eye. But in reality it depends, I'm pretty impressed by 1000-Base-T.

      The question I would ask is how much data can you send through a telephone wire that traverses the
      telephone network... Where it's in close proximity to other wires, bent at wacky angles, terminated improperly, etc, etc. Then my question would be when will our governments build a last mile fiber network?

      When can we begin worrying about sending 5 terabits/sec down that multimode fiber installed eveywhere, like we can with the newest single mode fiber? (or vice versa on the modes).

    6. Re:What the heck? by rmgrotkierii · · Score: 1

      If you had taken the time to RTFA, you would of seen this: Meetings the Hawkinses arranged with politicians such as Sen. Orrin Hatch were encouraging, but nothing compared to to the response from top executives at Blockbuster.

      --
      Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.
  22. Other scams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This guy isn't the only one running a venture capital scam promising high tech payoffs.

    Check out Betavoltaic This guy that is the CEO has a long history of pseudoscience, and some of his officers worked on "perpetual motion machines", all of which needed a DC power source to run.

    Posting anonymously to avoid the wrath of that asshole that runs the place. He likes to sue people to quiet them down about his scam.

    1. Re:Other scams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ??? Nuclear decay is controlled/influenced by external operations ??? That WOULD be a breakthrough!

  23. it was the aliens or the government by Cool+E · · Score: 1

    it was either the aliens or the government, so that made it disapear and look like a hoax so that we wouldn't know about it.

    yep thats definitly it.

  24. Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by Chasuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sometimes it is good to be a cynic.

    No, but sometimes it is good to be a skeptic. In fact, in my own experience, it is always good to be a skeptic.

    The cynics I've known were convinced that all human behavior was motivated wholly by self-interest, which, even if it is true in an ultimate sense, is an attitude guaranteed to close your mind. The skeptics, on the other hand, merely insist that all claims be testable and repeatable: they doubt, but their doubt is healthy and reasonable, and leave them with a mind-set that I think of as structured incredulity.

    If more people were skeptics, charlatans like John Edwards and James Van Praagh wouldn't be able to make a living, and this "Magic Box Hoax" could have never occurred.

    1. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by Angram · · Score: 1
      If we are talking about universal skeptics, you've got a dilemma to deal with ("The Skeptic's Dilemma," if you will).

      "Skeptics either have valid reasons for their universal doubting, or they have no valid reasons for it. If they have valid reasons, they surely know something that is valid, and they no longer are real skeptics. If they have no valid reasons, they have no reason to doubt. In the first case their position is inconsistent, and in the second case their position is irrational. Whichever way they turn, their position is untenable." - C.N. Bittle
      I am a cynic, and am therefore a moderate skeptic, who doubts anything that isn't scientific (something I can test myself). I am not close-minded. To say that skeptics are "healthy and reasonable" while insinuating that cynics are not, you are proving yourself, a skeptic, to be close-minded. I do not generalize that all skeptics are anything, other than skeptical.

      If more people were cynics or skeptics, things like this wouldn't happen. Don't be so hypocritical, it's quite frustrating.

      And to finish it off, a quote I added to my last post that seems appropriate:
      "Cynicism+Parsimony=Trouble"
      And a new one:
      "Hey skeptic, you won't believe what I have to say next."
      --

      GL
    2. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      carefull that goes to goatse.cx

    3. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by efuseekay · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great, now that we have somebody who calls himself a skeptic, but then went ahead and compartmentalized cynics and skeptics into nice little separate boxes.

      I'd like to see some testable, repeatable proof that being cynical is an attitude guaranteed to close minds.

      As you have claimed, of course.

      --
      Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    4. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by susano_otter · · Score: 2

      I'm skeptical about Bittle's analysis. It seems as though he's playing around with semantics, rather than presenting a new insight.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    5. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by Angram · · Score: 1

      So long as someone defines themself with a word, semantics are of key import to those of us wishing to understand them. If you call yourself a skeptic, you had best understand the implications. The insight is most certainly "new" as I've never heard anyone present the argument so well before. And who sayd it's supposed to be new anyway (though I think it is)? It's insight, and that's what intelligent people look for, whether someone has original insight or is able to present forgotten or unconsidered insight.

      --

      GL
    6. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by susano_otter · · Score: 2
      I'm just not sure it's actually an "insight". It sounds like he's saying "If we define a skeptic in such and such a way, then the term ceases to have any meaning, and all "sceptics" not truly sceptics, but rather some other thing (which he does not define, except to say that it is inconsistent with "scepticism" as he defines it), or else irrational.

      There are no skeptics, he says, only irrational doubters and people who disagree because they have knowledge of contradictory evidence. And he says this because he's redefined skepticism to mean something other than what we generally agree that it means:

      An attitude of doubt or uncertainty about a particluar topic.

      So, to paraphrase (again): If you have knowledge of contradictory evidence, then you are not uncertain or doubtful, [of the truth of the claim] but are instead certain [of the falsehood of the claim]. This certainty, of course, means that you are not a sceptic, and I'll agree that claiming to be a skeptic in this instance would be inconsistent.

      But what about the other option? He goes on to say that doubting a claim without knowing contradictory evidence is "irrational"--that is, rational people accept any claim that they do not currently have the knowledge to refute.

      For example: The entities that invested in Priest's "magic box" were behaving rationally. In fact, by preventing access to contradictory information, Priest was able to transform irrational behavior (investing in an obviously bogus technology) into rational behavior (investing in a technology whose claims had never been adequately proven by independent examination). Does this make sense to you?

      Suppose I make the following claim: "My revolutionary new mathematical proofs clearly indicate that FTL travel is possible."

      What's the rational course of action? Accept my claim, and promptly give me millions of dollars to build a prototype? If so, I can tell you where to send the money (cash or money orders only, please) right now.

      Or would it be more rational to find a panel of experts that could review my calculations and either support or refute them, before betting Aunt May's pension fund?

      "Skepticism" is the word some of us use to denote this attitude of waiting for reasonable proof before committing to believe in a thing. To say that this attitude doesn't exist, and that those that claim to be skeptics are either fools or delusional, completely ignores the fact that not only does the attitude exist, but that we even have a word for it. You can redefine it all you want, but then we're not even speaking the same language. You'll either have to come up with a new word in your language for that attitude (which in English is called "skepticism"), or else deny the existence of that attitude (in which case you won't need a word for it).

      Once again: Which is more rational? To withold your funds until you have evidence one way or the other about my claims, or to send me the money now?

      Please answer quickly, because baby needs a new pair of shoes.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    7. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This got modded up, eh? Time to post a bunch of goatse.cx links as AC and then go around as my real user sticking a warning onto each of them. The perfect crime.

    8. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by rgmoore · · Score: 2

      The problem with Bittle's view is that it is absolutist, while skepticism is almost inherently a relativist position. I don't require a "valid" reason for my beliefs in the sense that Bittle seems to suggest, i.e. something that is absolutely true. I'm actually strongly skeptical of the possibility of absolute knowledge. Instead, I accept that absolute truth is probably not attainable, and the best we can do is to look at the available evidence. I hold this view based on my own experience, which suggests that it is more reasonable than the alternative. Bittle's comments seem to be more indicative of his own difficulty accepting the idea of a world without absolute truth than any inherent difficulty with the concept of skepticism.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    9. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by Angram · · Score: 1

      You forget that the "reasons" can be based on prior knowledge, they don't require brand new testings of each instance. The rational explanation is the one that conforms to logic - which is based on our experiences itself. Also, I stated this was a critique of "universal skepticism," which it is. Moderate skepticism isn't the same, neccessarily. It does raise a valid point about being overly skeptic.

      --

      GL
    10. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by Angram · · Score: 1

      Once again, it's a critique of universal skepticism, the extreme form of skepticism. "Absolutist knowledge" is an irrelevent comment here. A statement of "2+2=4" is essentially what he is making. If you look at this logically, it's the answer you are guaranteed to get.

      Bittle doesn't suggest "absolute" knowledge at any point. He defines skepticism as universal doubt, which cannot be achieved without having a reason to doubt (even if it is simple logic on your part). This is contradictory.

      I don't think you can say that his comments are "indicative of his own difficulty accepting the idea of a world without absolute truth than any inherent difficulty with the concept of skepticism" and expect anyone to back you up. The statement is completely unfounded, and appears to be a simple attack on his character to discount his statement.

      You're trying to attribute a quote to something you have no evidence of, and, as a "doubtful" person, I can't accept such a ridiculous comment. Welcome to real skepticism: we don't bother with things that have no evidence or contradict logic or inherent knowledge.

      --

      GL
    11. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

      Bittle is just one of the many people that seem to think that skepticism is an all or nothing proposition. It's not. Yes, if you are ultimately skepitc of everything to the point of absurdity then just about NOTHING can be proven. However in practise being a skeptic doesn't mean being a moron, it means being careful. It means having a standard to apply to check new theories.

      In my case (and most of the scientific community), it's the concept of strong inference. If you have a new theory you want me to believe you need to back it up with evidence, it needs to be well documented and repeatable by third parties, such as my self, and it needs to be falsifable, and have had those conditions tested.

      This hoax failed basically all but the first. There was evidence, but it wasn't very strong. There was no way to independantly verify the results, and no alternate explinations proposed and tested for.

      The reason we can accept this as a good method for testing is it works well. Through induction we say since it has worked well in the past, it will continue to work well in teh future. No, we don't know this for 100% sure, but it's certian enough.

    12. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sometimes it is good to be a cynic.
      No, but sometimes it is good to be a skeptic. In fact, in my own experience, it is always good to be a skeptic.


      Right... It's never ever ever good to be cynic.
    13. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by firewrought · · Score: 1
      Bittle's argument reminds me of Edgar Allen Poe's assertion that a certain chess-playing machine was a hoax because "If a machine can play chess, it must work by perfect logic, and if it worked by perfect logic, it would never lose." Since the machine in question occassionally lost, Poe concluded it was being rigged by a human. Today, of course, we know that machines can play chess, and they can be quite good at it, given enough processing power, but they are still quite fallible. Poe's argument doesn't work because it's just a bunch of semantic sugar glued together without a rigourous formal model behind it.

      Likewise, Bittle's argument (judging from the one paragraph you give about it) doesn't make sense because it lacks an appropriate concept. Let me try and give it one: suppose that the human mind consists of (i) a big table of assertions marked with a degree of truth ["the sky is blue" is very true, "pigs can fly" is very false, "democracy works" is sorta true, etc.]; (ii) a reasoning architecture that maintains the truth table; and (iii) percepts and actuators that allow I/O with the outside world [vision, hearing, sight, neuromuscular control, etc.]. Now, let's argue that component (ii), the reasoning architecture, is shared by all human beings.

      Now, with this model, Bittle could make a coherent argument. He would define a skeptic to be someone that maintains no truth to be "absolutely true", and, evidently, has, in his knowledge base (KB), the following assertion marked as absolutely true: "for all x, x isa assertion in my KB implies x is not marked as 'absolutely true'". Obviously, there's an internal inconsistency in the skeptic's KB.

      Whatever you think of the above argument, at least it gives us something to reason with. We can object to the model, we can object to the definitions that I assume Bittle would give in the context of the model, but at least we're not lost in hopeless semantic sugar word games.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    14. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by firewrought · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      To say that skeptics are "healthy and reasonable" while insinuating that cynics are not, you are proving yourself, a skeptic, to be close-minded.

      How is making an assertion being close-minded? I believe that non-smokers have good lungs in general and that heavy smokers do not. Is that close-minded too? No. Being close-minded is being unwilling to consider alternatives when reasoning is presented for them. Your parent poster is not close minded unless you provide good evidence to counter his assertion and he persists to advocate it despite finding no counter to your counters. (Of course, some would say he is correct by definition. At least to me, cyncic implies skeptisicm + pessimism + "being perpetually bitter" which doesn't sound too healthy.

      As an aside, it is probably true that a certain degree of close-mindedness is necessary for living in this world. It may be a fundamental part of being "intelligent" (which is something of a misnomer: intelligence isn't about being correct or finding Truth, it's about being jumpy if you're the prey and ruthless if you're the predator (e.g., making optimal decisions in the time available to make them... exahustive search is not intelligence)).

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    15. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by Angram · · Score: 1

      "cyncic implies skeptisicm + pessimism + "being perpetually bitter"

      Are you saying that all cynics are pessimists, or that all skeptics are? And then you go on that the group is "perpetually bitter". I hope you aren't talking about cynics, because all the cynics I know are quite jolly, and are realists (which is the basis for skepticism and cynicism), not pessimists. If you go on with your insistance that cynics are thus (if that's what you were saying, it's not quite clear), then you are close-minded. I am presenting you with contrary evidence, don't dismiss me too quickly.

      --

      GL
    16. Re:Charlatans Exist Because We Love Them by cburley · · Score: 1
      Bittle is just one of the many people that seem to think that skepticism is an all or nothing proposition. It's not.

      Couldn't it be somewhat of an all-or-nothing proposition?

      ;-)

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
  25. Go on then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's completely bogus. Any patent examiner with a minimum background in electrical engineering should have thrown this out"

    I think a detailed explanation of some points that make the patent so clearly bogus would be appreciated by many here, and might help shame the U.S. Patent Office into action.

    ( Just saying that the bandwidth of copper is only X isn't enough, I feel ).

    1. Re:Go on then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are so many problems with the patent that it's hard to know where to begin. One is that if you have a 100Hz signal and start phase modulating it, it ceases to be a pure 100Hz signal. In particular, if you phase modulate a 100Hz signal with a 3MHz signal, you'll get 3MHz components in there; if those aren't transmitted, then you can recover the high frequency signal. The patent also assumes that if you mix two signals and offset one by 0.17V, you can separate the two at the other end. Well, no, you can't.

  26. Skeptical, not Cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think what they meant to say was that it would good to be skeptical, not cynical.

    -Anonymous Howard

  27. here is his patent by smoondog · · Score: 4, Funny


    Madison Priest's Patent

    Editorial: Bwa-hahahahahaha, Dumbasses. Maybe they should invest in Alex Chiu

    -Sean

    1. Re:here is his patent by rwg · · Score: 1

      Wow, I can become eternally young using just magnets and duct tape? Rednecks everywhere rejoice!

    2. Re:here is his patent by hey! · · Score: 2

      IANAEE, but I did get a ham license when I was a kid, which is enough to see that the description of the invention is a lot handwaving and jargon. According to the link above, the "invention" works as follows.

      (1) First to moudulate the signal with a > 1MHz carrier.

      (2) Mix this modulated signal with a fixed audio frequency reference signal, taking care the voltages (peak or RMS?) do not differ by more than 0.2 V.

      (3) This causes a miracle to occur that allows you to transmit video bandwidth signals over twisted copper pairs using about a microwatt of power.

      Of course, the fact that the nature of the miracle in step 3 is never actually explained is hidden by a truckloads of technical jibberish describing what goes on around it. I can see how this might take in a greedy VC (as W.C. Fields used to say, you can't cheat an honest man) but it is amazing this load of horseshit managed to get the PTO's blessing. Don't they have anybody with at least an associates degreee examining these things? If Priestly used a patent lawyer to prepare his application, that lawyer should be disbarred for gross incompetence or connivance in fraud.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  28. sounds like Lawrence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds just like Larry, ex-CEO of a startup before the VCs forced him out of the CEO position, who took the VCs for $30M, which they later admitted was a mistake.

  29. Ha ha! by jjoyce · · Score: 1

    I find this story hilarious. Just a bunch of rich, stupid, assholes chasing each other with dollar signs in their eyes, only to be fooled by a fast-talking hillbilly. More power to him. He should move out of the country while he's still got their money.

    1. Re:Ha ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure orbitz.com is interested in your viewpoints. They have been forwarded on.

  30. Bad Metaphor by aeloff · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    Priest's invention would make those old phone lines faster than anything on the market, decimating the communications speed limit.


    What a terrible mixing of metaphors! Save for the obvious contextual cues in the first part of the sentence, I would read the phrase as "reducing the communications bandwidth by some fraction".

    A better choice would be "obliterating" or some similar word without a numerical connotation .

    - one of the five English nit-picking /.'ers

    1. Re:Bad Metaphor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grammar nazi, go back to writing tech manuals and let the engineers do real work.

    2. Re:Bad Metaphor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is perfectly acceptable english, and there is no metaphor in the sentence you quoted. The author was simply using the most common modern definition of "decimating".

      "to reduce drastically especially in number b : to destroy a large part of "

      Thus "decimating" the limit would be destroying or greatly reducing them limit. The numerical connotation of "decimate" is close to archaic, and not in common usage.

    3. Re:Bad Metaphor by fatphil · · Score: 1

      "decimating the communications speed limit"

      "reducing the communications bandwidth by some fraction".

      By one tenth, to be precise. Hey, if you're going to nit-pick, go the whole way!
      Your point is a good one, certainly.

      FP.
      (English nitpicker in exile)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  31. Parallel case or same guy? by eagl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was a spectator to a similiar case, where a guy calling himself Paul "Voss" Hinds was trying to get money to start a flight simulator game company. That story has a LOT of parallels.

    He claims to be an Air Force Academy Graduate.
    His AF records cannot be found by ANYONE, and he claims this is because of his involvement in secret projects.

    He was out of sight for several months in 1997, and later claimed he was on death's door due to a scorpion sting under a fingernail.

    He had a "fall guy" who he claimed ran off with the $10,000 he managed to get from investors.

    He submitted as "proof" several SGI generated "screenshots", all of which used clearly typical demo features and openGL artifacts.

    He claimed to own a P-51 Mustang and even submitted a doctored photo of a P-51 with his head cut-n-pasted into the cockpit and his name written under the canopy. The font for the canopy matched an Adobe Photoshop default.

    He claimed to have shot down several Iraqi fighters in his F-16, yet no records of those shootdowns exist.

    The list goes on and on, and this guy finally resurfaced using his handle "voss" in an online simulation, and he verbally attacks anyone who brings the scam up, challenging them to talk to his "astronaut general buddy". Strangely enough, this astronaut guy actually exists although I have not contacted him personally.

    The parallels kept hitting me as I read the article, and I wonder if this was the same guy, or if (somehow) Paul Hinds had been set up by this same guy.

    1. Re:Parallel case or same guy? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of sociopaths out there, and many behave the same. Some are criminals, some are just nutcases. Basically, a sociopath has a cognitive disorder wherein they lie without guilt or concern, and lie massively. They have no conscience and seem to lack the ability to understand normal human concerns about right and wrong. Sociopaths can be quite smart, and in those cases they put together strings of lies on lies on lies. They rationalize a lot of things resulting from their actions as being someone else's fault or even an act of nature. I've heard the theory that it results from childhood abuse that warps a person into developing mechanisms to deflect all responsibility. So they learn how to spin elaborate lies... er, 'we just want to make great software'... heheh

      You would think that technology is a rational and logical field and everyone in it is a clear thinker, but even technologists are at heart human. So when some sociopathic marketing liar makes convincing claims, people often get taken in. More commonly, it's management that believes the lies, not the people who understand science and technololgy. But corporate management usually excels at stupidity, greed, and denial.

      If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But plenty of conmen know that suckers often want to be conned.

    2. Re:Parallel case or same guy? by tb3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A cognitive disorder wherein they lie without guilt or concern
      Gee, sound like a perfect description of this man.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    3. Re:Parallel case or same guy? by MisterBlister · · Score: 1

      I dont think the lardass pictured in the article there holding his patent could fit in a P51.

    4. Re:Parallel case or same guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He claims to be an Air Force Academy Graduate. His AF records cannot be found by ANYONE, and he claims this is because of his involvement in secret projects.

      In case anyone thinks this makes any sense, Why the hell would you tell anyone you were in the air force if you were involved in secret projects?? If some government agency puts you on some secret project and removes all records of you, YOU WERE NEVER THERE. Don't bother claiming otherwise.

    5. Re:Parallel case or same guy? by KirkH · · Score: 1

      Holy Hell! I believe you. Without personal experience I would be somewhat skeptical about these types of people, but I've had the misfortune of working with one several years ago.

      I'm not sure how he was hired since I wasn't in the hiring process, but here are some of his stories:

      - He was in the Air Force and Marines at various times in his career, including a stint as a Navy SEAL.

      - While in the armed forces, he was picked to play for the 1980 US Soccer team. Of course, these games were boycotted by the US since they were being held in Moscow, so there are no records.

      - He was witness to a super-secret airplane project (the name escapes me) in which the plane flew so fast that the pilot could not steer quickly enough to keep it in the atmosphere (due to the curvature of the Earth).

      - While a SEAL, he was trying to get married (for the second time, same girl) when his beeper along with all his buddies' beepers in the congregation went off at the same time, they all ran out into the parking lot to meet a landing helicopter that wisked them away. ("Wasn't that in that movie 'Navy SEALs'?", a co-worker asked. "Yeah," he said. "I think they based that movie on us.")

      - One time he lived in a bad neighborhood which was frequented by drug dealers. One day, seeing a dealer on his corner, he runs out and confronts him with a shotgun. The dealer takes off in his car, which this guy shoots up with the shotgun. The cops arrive and congratulate him on standing up to the druggies.

      - At one time he was tapped to train snipers for the local police force. (He was a sniper for the Marines, BTW).

      - One of his hobbies was potato-cannon construction. He developed a model that was so powerful that the FBI contacted him about it. They wanted the specs.

      Man, I could go on and on, I heard so many of them. At first, we challanged some of his stories until we figured out that he REALLY believed them. That's when we started wondering when he was going to wander in some day with that shotgun of his...so we just nodded our heads after that.

  32. So typical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How often do busineeses ignore their own technical people? All the time at great expense I reckon. I am sure a lot of that happened here.

  33. People never learn by qengho · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wired mag ran a story last year about a guy with a similar scam. P.T. Barnum rules!

    1. Re:People never learn by prizog · · Score: 2

      Look, here's another one! Wow, is someone selling a book on how to do these scams?

  34. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by wik · · Score: 1

    I always wondered what balun stood for. Thanks! We used to have them in the dorms at CMU (I hope they have removed 'em all by now and replaced then with a jack that doesn't look like it belongs in an evil scientist's lab). People said they could support 100mbit ethernet over those *ancient* cables, though I never saw it myself.

    For those of you who think they can get really cheap ethernet cable with them, think again. The baluns and connectors (at least the IBM ones we used) weren't cheap.

    --
    / \
    \ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
    x
    / \
  35. as they say on Car Talk: by KingPrad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the investors "made their decisions unhindered by the thought process". Sums it up I think.

    --
    Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
    1. Re:as they say on Car Talk: by yack0 · · Score: 1

      That's 'unencumbered' - not unhindered.

      --
      -- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
  36. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You also will be violating half a dozen laws of physics, but....

    ...theres no jail time on that.

  37. Some things just don't change... by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    ...And this kind of blind investing is what caused the dot.com fallout. "It works, really! Trust me!" At least somebody was smart enough to verify cold fusion and find it was a hoax withing a short persiod of time, but this is just plain stupidity on the companies part. Here's a good one: Require the inventor of Technology X to make the invention work at a site not of his choosing. If the inventor can't either do that, or let somebody at least look at the guts, somethings wrong... Jeez... A fool and their money...

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  38. his wife ruined it all by acecccp · · Score: 1

    "The day after a critical fund-raising trip to woo major telecommunications firms in Chicago, court records show Linda Priest called one of Zekko's founding fathers.

    It was all a hoax, she said. There was no invention. There was only The Revelation."
    ------
    I guess this is just one great plan foiled by women ;P I wonder why she did it though.

    1. Re:his wife ruined it all by Tazzy531 · · Score: 2

      She was trying to cover her ass.. Her side of the story says that she was unaware of everything that's going on. Up until the Chicago event, she thought it was a legitimate invention but only realized it when you opend the computer and found a VCR. Now when all the investors start to press criminal charges on his husband, she could claim that she was not part of it and even reported it to the authorities...

      My take is that she was involved from day one. I mean, if you're husband is running half a mile of cable across a river, you'd notice. You'd also notice if there were millions of dollars of unopened computer components. You'd also notice your husband very upset when these "floods, lightning, etc" destroyed the only working prototype.

      --


      _______________________________
      "I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
    2. Re:his wife ruined it all by sammy.lost-angel.com · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he has some proof that she was involved from the beginning, which is why she got back involved. I'd imagine he scared her pretty bad :)

      Scam artist is a weird trade. I have no respect for them. These are also the same guys that actually get laid after a night at a bar :)

    3. Re:his wife ruined it all by opcenter · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt he ever got laid... even by his wife... did you see his picture in the article?

    4. Re:his wife ruined it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Scam artist is a weird trade. I have no respect for them. These are also the same guys that actually get laid after a night at a bar :)

      How is that a scam? Do you think they're somehow mesmerizing or forcing those women to go sleep with them? Maybe you should look for the simplest explanation: they go to bars and look for other people (of whatever gender they prefer) looking for sex. And if that's all you want, you don't have to do anything else.

  39. Selling Yourself by Fished · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For all those who are outraged that the scam took in so many (i.e. "Why didn't they get some competent people to recview it before investing), the answer is that they did. The article talks about the way that many scientists reviewed the invention, but were never quite able to say that the invention was impossible. On this basis, the investor's said "it appears to work. I'll take the risk and assume it does actually work."
    <p>

    Why didn't the scientists say that this was completely absurd? A lot of reasons. First, they are being paid to review the invention. If they say that the invention doesn't work and it does, then they are liable for the massive losses incurred by the investor for a failed opportunity. If they say it doesn't work and it does, they get sued by the inventor. So, what do they do? They hedge their bets. They say that "more study" is needed, etc. To business types, this sounds like they are just being nerdy and cautious. Since they leave the question open, the investor (who wants to believe) goes ahead and goes for it, figuring that the 5 million dollars invested (or whatever) could well turn into billions.
    <p>
    In some respects, the scientiastws have failed them by not emphasizing their near-certainty that the idea was nonsense. And the businessmen failed themselves by not bothering to learn that, when a scientist says "quite improbable", he means "impossible."

    <p>

    sounds like everyday life to me, and should to most geeks.

    --
    "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
    1. Re:Selling Yourself by Zurk · · Score: 1

      it is everyday life. thats unfortunately a really bad thing since its basically the Cover Your Arse mentality thats dripping into our society. no one can give a concrete answer since bad things happen to those who do -- its CYA at its finest.
      and not something anyone should be proud of. much less the scientific community.

    2. Re:Selling Yourself by skwang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Investment firms and corperations usually keep sums of money around specifically allocated for the use in high risk projects. The idea is based on Pascal's wager. In a nutshell Pascal's wager says that it is better to belive that God exists because if you are correct you gain everything, and if you are wrong you lose (almost) nothing. I won't go into the details of the philosphy or argue whether or not his line of thinking is/was right or wrong.

      VooDoo Science by Dr. Robert Park, which was reviewed here on slashdot, talks about how companies set aside money which they invest in inventions like this. The thinking is that if the invention really works, the company will win big. If you invention is a scam (in most cases it is) the company is only out a couple of million. You must remember that if you do "win," your company will make billions. It is the same (some would say misguided) logic that results in people playing the lottery.

      I am not going to debate whether or not this logic holds water. I do want to say that many times when (large) investors look into these scams, regardless of what a scientific study says, they are willing to invest because they are already predicting they will lose the money. Unfortunately, small and personal investors fall for the scam too.

    3. Re:Selling Yourself by blair1q · · Score: 2

      I think the author of the article was just taking someone's word for that. Any credible scientist who would pronounce any sort of opinion on this device without once having looked inside the CPU case is not a credible scientist.

      --Blair

  40. OH NO!! by sarcast · · Score: 1
    You also will be violating half a dozen laws of physics, but....

    Will the physics police arrest me?

    1. Re:OH NO!! by WetCat · · Score: 1

      In Newton, KS, there is, of course, a police...
      And the police is named (you bet!) Newton Police!
      I think it is guarding the Laws of Newton...

    2. Re:OH NO!! by Moonshadow · · Score: 2

      No, just give you a speeding ticket.

      Thanks, I'll be here all week.

    3. Re: OH NO!! by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      They don't have to. Real laws enforce themselves.

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
    4. Re:OH NO!! by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      Naw, they just spend all their time at Charles', eating breakfast burritos....

  41. Whats that saying again? by DJTodd242 · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah. Anything that seems too good to be true, usually is.

    1. Re:Whats that saying again? by Pyrosophy · · Score: 1

      Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

  42. more proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rich people don't get that way with brains,
    they get that way with luck. Dumb luck.

  43. So many suckers, so little time... by Boulder+Geek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's a story about a similar scam from the dot com era. This guy raised $20M, and spent $16M of that on a party in Las Vegas with entertainment provided by the Dixie Chicks and The Who.

    --
    A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
    1. Re:So many suckers, so little time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I like that story, especially this part

      "Stanley was born in the rural south, the son and grandson of Appalachian preachers."

      I can't really figure out what combination of inbreeding would cause this , but it's hilarious!

    2. Re:So many suckers, so little time... by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Well that would mean that his mother and father were either mother and son or father and daughter, both of course being preachers.

      It's not all that difficult. Probably pretty common to... in Applachia. It's a natural result of all the flooding that happens there. At least that's what the preacher.. I'm mean my mother told me before she showed me all about the birds and the bees. What a great mother ;-p

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  44. Wow by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most dumbfounding was at the Fort Gates Ferry, a ramshackle barge that crosses the St. Johns River near Welaka. Priest would often demonstrate the invention there, transmitting video from a computer on one side of the river to a partner on the other side. It seemed, the Zekko executives thought, an impossible test to fake.

    Then they saw more than a half-mile of coaxial cable coiled on the dock.

    "Madison had actually run co-ax under the St. Johns River there," Mons said.

    Man, it might be hoax, but this dude worked HARD to keep the hoax alive. It makes you wonder how far he would get in life he put all this energy into something worthwhile.

    I hate to admire someone who's basically a thief, but anyone who goes to that much trouble almost deserves to get away with it. :)

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:Wow by gila_monster · · Score: 1

      anyone who goes to that much trouble almost deserves to get away with it. :)

      Almost. But anyone stupid enough to believe something so obstensibly bogus certainly deserves to be taken.

      --
      Ad luna, Alicia! Ad luna!
    2. Re:Wow by Planetes · · Score: 1

      I would've found it curious that he picked on of the narrowest points on the St. Johns.. The river is pretty wide through most of it's length. i.e. Where I-295 crosses it in Jax it's over 3 miles.. But he picked a "demo" location that was a fraction of that.

      --
      Planetes
      "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promo Ad
      "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitl
    3. Re:Wow by sc00p18 · · Score: 1

      "Man, it might be hoax, but this dude worked HARD to keep the hoax alive. It makes you wonder how far he would get in life he put all this energy into something worthwhile.

      I hate to admire someone who's basically a thief, but anyone who goes to that much trouble almost deserves to get away with it. :)"



      No, he didn't work very hard at all. He deserved nothing.


      "The ferryman at Fort Gates, Dale Jones, confirmed to the Times-Union that Priest had paid him to string the cable, but refused to discuss the matter.

      The river is about a half-mile wide at the ferry, long enough that the cable would need special devices to amplify the signal. The Zekko source said the company had provided Priest with just such devices."

    4. Re:Wow by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      anyone stupid enough to believe something so obstensibly bogus certainly deserves to be taken

      To quote Steve Jobs, "It is morally wrong to let stupid people keep their money".

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  45. Can't stand cynics by mikosullivan · · Score: 1
    I can't stand cynics either. In my experience, cynics are people believe that
    1. The world sucks
    2. The world will always suck
    3. Any efforts to make the world better is naive and will only make things worse
    In short, cynicism is a loser attitude disguising itself as enlightenment.
    --
    Miko O'Sullivan
    1. Re:Can't stand cynics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little extreme - I'm certainly something of a cynic, as most of my co-workers will attest. I nonetheless remain fairly cheerful about life - I'm a good humoured cynic, rather than a bitter one.

      And for the record, my most cynical predictions tend to be proven right more often than not.

    2. Re:Can't stand cynics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You suck.

      (sorry, i couldn't resist ;])

  46. This sound familliar by graveyhead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone else remember pixelon? You'd think investers would learn from their past mistakes...

    --
    std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
  47. not Ted Turner by ruck · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to the article, it was Teddy Turner, Ted Turner's son.

    1. Re:not Ted Turner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who's money do you think "ted tuner's son" was using to invest in this?

    2. Re:not Ted Turner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like Junior's grounded for a while.

  48. Here is the schematics, from the patent: by 3Suns · · Score: 5, Funny

    From the bottom of the patent:

    +--------------+
    | |
    Data | YHBT | Data
    =====+ YHL +=====
    In | HAND | Out
    | |
    +--------------+

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
    1. Re:Here is the schematics, from the patent: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG! I cracked up when I saw this! I wish I could moderate it up for being Funny! Good jorb!

    2. Re:Here is the schematics, from the patent: by halo8 · · Score: 1

      yhbt
      YHL
      HAND


      I dont get it??

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    3. Re:Here is the schematics, from the patent: by Accelerated+Joe · · Score: 4, Informative

      YHBT Jargon File

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
    4. Re:Here is the schematics, from the patent: by halo8 · · Score: 1

      hey thanx,
      i didnt think of running it through google
      i thought it was some sort of 3733T haX0rz talk to somthing, thanx joe

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    5. Re:Here is the schematics, from the patent: by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1

      YHBT = You Have Been Trolled
      YHL = You Have Lost
      HAND = Have A Nice Day

  49. The Linux box hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this like the linux box hoax

  50. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by NevarMore · · Score: 1

    "If anyone shows you a "magic box" but won't let you touch it, change the setup of the demonstration, or suggest other ways to test it, RUN !" should continue on to say "..run over and press every button imaginable and see waht happens!"

  51. Where Does Honesty Get You? by idonotexist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This article pisses me off, why? This scammer has an expensive home, a few cars such as a Jaguar (ok, Jaguar sucks but it is arguably better than his Eclipse), boats, and a couple of planes --- oh, and he still has a bundle of cash.

    I, or any number of us, could pull an evil-scheme like this off. But, for some reason we don't. For some reason we have ethics and values. And, for some reason, a guy like that has more money than he needs to live on. Obviously, the world is not fair.

    --
    "There ought to be limits to freedom"
    1. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor baby. Go move to Europe, socialist boy.

    2. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I, or any number of us, could pull an evil-scheme like this off. But, for some reason we don't.

      It takes lots of balls to do this. You also have to be an excellent liar. Lets see you weasel out a couple million out of ANYONE with ANY method. So no, you, nor any number of us, could NOT pull this off.

    3. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by SamBeckett · · Score: 0, Troll

      BAHAHAHA.. You are such a twit its not even funny.

    4. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by SpotBug · · Score: 1


      Don't fret about it. I guarantee you this guy is not living a happy life. You are probably in a much better situation than he.

      It's been said soooo many times before, but everybody always forgets (or never really believes it): cars and boats and planes and whatever else are interesting to look at and touch and play with (for a little while), but happiness is an altogether different thing.

      Really. It's true.

      --
      cygnuhchur
    5. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by Quixote · · Score: 2
      And, for some reason, a guy like that has more money than he needs to live on. Obviously, the world is not fair.

      What makes you think money is everything?

      Just the fact that people with ethics often aren't the people with money, should tell you that ethics and money often don't go together.

      Me, I'd rather be an honest and ethical person, rather than a rich one. At least I enjoy whatever little money I have!

    6. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by hendridm · · Score: 2

      Although I agree the only way to get ahead in this world is to be a dishonest cheater, I'm not sure it was as easy as you might think to pull something like this off.

      You can make a lot of money by being dishonest in a much easier way - start a retail business. Well, at least this worked for Best Buy.

    7. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by garver · · Score: 2

      ... the only way to get ahead in this world is to be a dishonest cheater...

      Only true if the world is run by dishonest cheaters.

    8. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Me, I'd rather be an honest and ethical person, rather than a rich one. At least I enjoy whatever little money I have!

      Are you really so naive as to believe that unethical people who have a lot of money don't enjoy it? That sounds to me like something that people without money tell themselves to console themselves, sort of like telling your kid that the school bully is actually miserable, when in fact he's probably having a great time picking on other people.

      Well, enjoy it while you can, because the people with money and power are looking to make sure you have even less money to enjoy than you have now, so that they will have even more money and power to enjoy.

      Feel free to bury your head in the sand and tell yourself that it's okay, while legislation like the DMCA and SSSCA gets passed and enforced. Yes, it'll all be okay, even if you no longer have any money and are living in a corporate run police state. Because at least you'll still have your ethics!

      (And yes, I despise those people without ethics and am sickened at how they seem to be able to do so much better than people with ethics, but I'm not naive enough to believe that the fact that I have any ethics makes one damned bit of difference in the real world. In fact, I know it puts me at a significant disadvantage, and sometimes wish I didn't have these ethical beliefs that prevent me from doing something about that).

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    9. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by MisterBlister · · Score: 1
      I agree to a point. But OTOH I think the people he took the money from really had it coming.

      What kind of morons would give away millions to someone without being able to do independent testing to see if the thing really worked? GREEDY MORONS, that's who. Its not like these people were giving to a charity and then having the money stolen..They were hoping to turn their millions into billions, and were blinded from the facts by overwhelming greed. A large part of me is glad they had their money taken!

    10. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by greenrd · · Score: 1
      I suppose you think fraud is good and the victims deserve it. STFU, wanker.

    11. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by DavittJPotter · · Score: 1

      Are you saying it's not? Or are you just being contrary for it's own sake?

      --
      "If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
    12. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by CityZen · · Score: 1

      Yup. If you're poor, your typical biggest worry is "will I have enough money?" If you're rich like this guy is, his biggest worry might be "I hope that no one I cheated is going to kill me today". Maybe not that, exactly, but you get the picture.

    13. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by Quixote · · Score: 2
      Yes, it'll all be okay, even if you no longer have any money and are living in a corporate run police state. Because at least you'll still have your ethics!

      Exactly! You can take away everything I have, but you can not take away my morals and my ethics.

      Money is something that other people can take away from you (or give to you). It is not in your control; it controls you.

      My ethics and morals are my own. I didn't get them from anybody, and nobody can take them away from me.

      Regardless of how much money you have, chances are 99.99999% that someone else will have more than you do. And if money matters to you (like it would appear), then that fact alone will make you miserable.

    14. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by Kanasta · · Score: 2

      Just goes to show. The key is pulling off a scam quickly, and not being greedy after the 1st few mil. Disappear and nobody would have called the FBI.

      Wierd stuff.

    15. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by madenosine · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Ellison isn't constantly crying like a baby because Big Bill has more money than him.

      Actually.....

    16. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by alcmena · · Score: 1

      They were hoping to turn their millions into billions, and were blinded from the facts by overwhelming greed. A large part of me is glad they had their money taken!

      Unfortunately though, when things like this happen it makes the investors more reserved in the future. Some guy who really does have a good invention will now have a harder time getting the funding he needs to bring it to us.

    17. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      Me, I'd rather be an honest and ethical person, rather than a rich one. At least I enjoy whatever little money I have!

      Are you really so naive as to believe that unethical people who have a lot of money don't enjoy it?


      Of course unethical people enjoy the money they steal from others. That's part of what makes them unethical, lack of conscience. But if you ARE ethical and DO have a conscience, you won't enjoy ill-gotten gains.

      That sounds to me like something that people without money tell themselves to console themselves, sort of like telling your kid that the school bully is actually miserable, when in fact he's probably having a great time picking on other people.

      The two aren't mutually exclusive. Bullies tend to be insecure, unhappy people who enjoy beating people up. Well-adjusted people don't derive pleasure that way.

      Well, enjoy it while you can, because the people [microsoft.com] with [mpaa.org] money [riaa.org] and [wto.org] power [whitehouse.gov] are looking to make sure you have even less money to enjoy than you have now, so that they will have even more money and power to enjoy.

      Feel free to bury your head in the sand and tell yourself that it's okay, while legislation like the DMCA and SSSCA gets passed and enforced. Yes, it'll all be okay, even if you no longer have any money and are living in a corporate run police state. Because at least you'll still have your ethics!


      Sheesh. Since when is "I'd rather be ethical than rich" anywhere close to "I'm happy to let unethical people rob and oppress me?" You're reaching here, to put it mildly. I can only speak for myself, I suppose, but my ethical sense that would keep me from enjoying stolen money also fuels my outrage at others who do so.

      Your idea that being ethical puts you at a serious disadvantage is simply untrue. Sure, there are plenty of people who have prospered from crime, and gotten away with it to boot, but there are also plenty who lost everything, never got ahead in the first place, rotted in jail, or were killed by the other ethically challenged types they associated with. I'm sure you think this is incredibly naive and idealistic, but the world would be a much worse place for all of us if we all chucked our ethics to get ahead. There will always be notable examples of those who profit by crime, but if you look, you'll also see many who do very well (financially and/or personally) by behaving ethically. There is value in not being part of the problem.

    18. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by SamBeckett · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In this particular case, yeah, I do. As for my wanking habbit.. ahem... Excuse me.

    19. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by Provincialist · · Score: 1
      ... the only way to get ahead in this world is to be a dishonest cheater...

      Only true if the world is run by dishonest cheaters.

      QED.

      --
      I am programmed for etiquette, not destruction!
    20. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by kcbrown · · Score: 2
      There will always be notable examples of those who profit by crime, but if you look, you'll also see many who do very well (financially and/or personally) by behaving ethically. There is value in not being part of the problem.

      The problem here is that you're equating ethical behavior with lawful behavior. The two aren't the same thing at all.

      And being ethical does put you at a serious disadvantage. Don't believe me? The explain to the rest of us why so many of the richest people in the U.S. are unethical (hint: Bill Gates didn't become the richest guy in the U.S. by behaving ethically). Explain to us why we haven't seen an ethical President for the past 30 years.

      If being ethical didn't put one at a serious disadvantage, then we wouldn't be losing our rights on a daily basis like we have been for the past 2-3 decades, because the unethical people would be opposed by at least as many ethical people. But that just doesn't happen, does it? Instead, the unethical are almost completely unopposed, because the ethical DON'T HAVE POWER. What more proof could you possibly want???

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    21. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by kcbrown · · Score: 2
      Regardless of how much money you have, chances are 99.99999% that someone else will have more than you do. And if money matters to you (like it would appear), then that fact alone will make you miserable.

      Ah, yes, the "money doesn't matter because someone else will always have more than you" argument.

      Well, I've got news for you, but money matters to you, too. Don't believe me? Try getting rid of all of it and see how happy you are living on the street.

      Yeah, that's what I thought.

      Money does matter. It matters because it is a tool we use to get by in life. It is the alternative to the direct barter system. If you didn't have money, you'd have to fall back to the barter system in order to survive. All money does is provide a means of exchange.

      Do you think you will be just as happy being completely self-sufficient (you grow, gather, or hunt your own food, build your own shelter, etc., and do it using only tools that you have made from scratch. And don't depend on anyone for medical assistance when you need it, either) as you are now? You might think so, but I'll bet reality will be very different. There's a reason people prefer to live within society than away from it: humans are far more capable in groups than alone. But to function as a member of a group, you have to be able to exchange your labor for someone else's. And thus we eventually end up back where we started, looking at money.

      Money itself isn't what makes me happy. What makes me happy are the things I can do with it. Some people get confused between the two, of course, but many don't. Hell, some even enjoy the pursuit of money.

      Almost everyone out there would like more money. It's not because they want the money directly, it's because of the things they'd like to do with it. For such people, the pursuit of money is not in and of itself enjoyable (though the jobs they get paid for might be), and that's why they don't pursue it as vigorously as some.

      But don't make the mistake, as you seem to be, of believing that because money in and of itself isn't what people are after, that it isn't important. It's important just like food is important -- a requirement of survival in today's world.

      And as should be obvious from so many of the articles on Slashdot, money is an expression of power. Relating back to the original thread, those who lack ethics seem to be much more capable of acquiring and using money than those who are ethical. Hence, I stand by my original assertion that being ethical puts one at a significant disadvantage in the real world.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    22. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that you're equating ethical behavior with lawful behavior. The two aren't the same thing at all.

      No, I'm not. The word "crime" in the line you cited was a poor choice on my part, but the point of my whole comment wasn't focused on crime (I assume we can agree that crime is not ethical, even though unethical acts aren't necessarily criminal).

      And being ethical does put you at a serious disadvantage. Don't believe me? The explain to the rest of us why so many of the richest people in the U.S. are unethical (hint: Bill Gates didn't become the richest guy in the U.S. by behaving ethically). Explain to us why we haven't seen an ethical President for the past 30 years.

      It's not up to me to explain one of your assertions. You take Bill Gates and use him as an example to prove "many" of the richest people are unethical. First you'd have to explain to me how you know this (hint: You don't.).

      If being ethical didn't put one at a serious disadvantage, then we wouldn't be losing our rights on a daily basis like we have been for the past 2-3 decades, because the unethical people would be opposed by at least as many ethical people. But that just doesn't happen, does it?

      So tell me, what rights did you lose today? Yesterday? Last Tuesday? To say we are losing our rights on a daily basis is such a grossly hysterical overstatement of our problems I don't think it proves anything at all.

      Instead, the unethical are almost completely unopposed, because the ethical DON'T HAVE POWER. What more proof could you possibly want???

      How about evidence instead of assertions? I don't buy the notion that the unethical are unopposed. Otherwise, unethical behavior would never have repercussions.

      If being ethical is such a burden for you, throw your ethics away. If there isn't value in your ethics, why feel any need to adhere to them? As it is, you're just whining.

    23. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by gughunter · · Score: 1

      > Explain to us why we haven't seen an ethical President for the past 30 years.

      I.e., since the end of Nixon's first term? Interesting place to draw the line. :)

    24. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Sure, money is important. But that doesn't mean it should be used as a measure of self-worth or success. One who is ethical is only "at a significant disadvantage" at achieving some goal involving wealth or power. If ones goals are somewhere different (say self-fulfillment), having amounts of money in excess of that needed to live comfortably and maintain a buffer for emergencies is unnecessary. I'm going to discuss my personal value system just to illustrate one example of such a system not focused around the almighty ${CURRENCY_UNIT}.

      As for me, my goal in life is to be happy. I find that the best way to do this is to make cool stuff. I get a kick out of designing a piece of software, getting other people on board (if necessary) and actually building the thing. It's suprising what one can do without a particularly large amount of money, either by picking up volunteer labor, a sponsor of some variety, or just by focusing on one-man projects; there's a lot of stuff that can still be created by just one dedicated person. Further, I find that money doesn't make me particularly happy -- certainly not as much as actually building something -- so I don't pursue it except as a means to pay the rent.

      Certainly, if I couldn't pay the rent, I would be unhappy -- there's some minimum that needs to be met. But if I've already paid the rent and my bills, and put a little away in the savings account, making more money won't make me happier. Making more cool stuff will -- and making cool stuff (when that cool stuff is software designed with the premise that it should be implementable by one very dedicated individual) takes suprisingly little money, at least until one tries to do professional spit-and-polish (and hiring artists and such is what business types are there for).

      If power is success, then those who are ethical may indeed be at a disadvantage. To me, at least, power isn't success; happiness is success, and the best way at it is creation. I'm creating things. I'm happy. I'm succesful. (My most recent project was an online voting system which picked up a fair bit of acclaim in the local papers after being used by the local university; ones before that are mostly software testing tools -- nothing making a big splash, but I enjoyed making them, and their users are appreciative).

      One last thing: A word on ethics. I don't get a kick out of most behaviour that violates my ethics (though I might get a kick out of something that violates your ethics; I don't know what they are, and so can't comment), and so I'm ethical. By my standards. Is this a good way to run a society? Probably not. Is it a good way to run myself? Well, it seems to work quite well.

    25. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      The whole thing makes me laugh. If he had swindled some poor ignorant elderly people or something, I'd be outraged. But instead, he swindled a bunch of greedy corporations and investors, who also have way more money that they need. So the money came from other evil-scheming people with no ethics. Maybe if someone like this could scam the RIAA and MPAA out of all their money, we wouldn't have to worry about stupid laws being passed.

    26. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by kcbrown · · Score: 2
      The reason that power can be considered some measure of success is that without it, you cannot defend yourself against unethical people who have it.

      And that's the problem: those people who are unethical but who also have power will of course misuse their power. Unless ethical people also have power, the people without ethics will win. They will win because it is that type of person who likes to make the lives of others more difficult, just like the school bully does.

      Unethical people are able to acquire money and power much more easily than ethical people because our society rewards the unethical and punishes the ethical. Want proof? Look at who gets elected to office.

      None of this is meant as a criticism of how you run your life. The main point I was trying to make is that people who acquire their money and power through unethical means are not unhappy (rather the opposite, methinks), and to claim otherwise is naive and ridiculous.

      It may be that you will remain happy while remaining ethical. I certainly hope so (in response to your comment about my ethics versus yours, I expect that they're very similar). But because ethical people tend not to acquire power, don't expect to remain happy just because you're ethical. Unethical people with power tend to use that power to enrichen themselves by making our lives more difficult and, therefore, by making us less happy than we would be otherwise. So don't expect to remain happy or successful simply because you're ethical.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    27. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by kcbrown · · Score: 2

      Well, I had to draw the line somewhere, and 30 years seemed like a nice round number. Since I don't have any experience or memory of Presidents prior to that, I had to limit myself to 30 years. The number could actually be quite a bit larger but I had to stop someplace. :-)

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    28. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by kcbrown · · Score: 2
      No, I'm not. The word "crime" in the line you cited was a poor choice on my part, but the point of my whole comment wasn't focused on crime (I assume we can agree that crime is not ethical, even though unethical acts aren't necessarily criminal).

      Actually, we can't even agree on that. Doing drugs is a crime, for instance, but I see nothing unethical about it. Some crimes are unethical, and some aren't, and it just depends.

      It's not up to me to explain one of your assertions. You take Bill Gates and use him as an example to prove "many" of the richest people are unethical. First you'd have to explain to me how you know this (hint: You don't.).

      You think perjuring yourself on the witness stand is an ethical thing to do? How about the mafia style techniques his company uses? And it is his company, right?

      So tell me, what rights did you lose today? Yesterday? Last Tuesday? To say we are losing our rights on a daily basis is such a grossly hysterical overstatement of our problems I don't think it proves anything at all.

      Fair enough. Would it be better for me to say that we lose more of our rights every time Congress passes a batch of laws?

      How about evidence instead of assertions? I don't buy the notion that the unethical are unopposed. Otherwise, unethical behavior would never have repercussions.

      There is some opposition to the unethical, but that opposition appears to be waning. Furthermore, ethical behavior also has consequences (hell, just look at the front page of Slashdot and you'll find at least one example today).

      If being ethical is such a burden for you, throw your ethics away. If there isn't value in your ethics, why feel any need to adhere to them? As it is, you're just whining.

      The Dark Side is tempting, but my ethics prevent me from going there. They're too strong a part of me to allow it. But at least I'm aware of the disadvantages.

      Don't think the unethical are winning? Then explain our apparently continuous slide towards police statehood.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    29. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      So don't expect to remain happy or successful simply because you're ethical.

      I think it's a reasonable expectation to have, so long as my happiness and success are based on the right things. Rarely will it be in someone else's best interests to stop me from making cool stuff -- situations such as the DMCA and SSSCA are exceptions rather than the rule -- and, as before, those actions which I consider unethical are at least a subset of those same actions which would (directly or otherwise) make me unhappy were I to take them. Being less ethical, therefore, would not likely make me happier, unless I were an utterly different person. Even were I a person who took actions in conflict with my present ethics, however, I still doubt that I would be "unethical" -- perhaps "differently ethical" would be a better phrase.

      By way of explaining: I'm not really sure that there exist "unethical" people, excluding those who are genuinely psychopathic. I've dealt with folks whose ethics are in direct conflict with my own at times, and I doubt that any of them consider themselves bad people. The employer who decided to withhold pay until the ever-expanding project was finished, for instance, no doubt believed that his actions were right and appropriate given the circumstances; the loan-shirking friend no doubt believed that her dire financial straits made her actions acceptable as well. What I'm saying, again, is that there are no unethical people -- just differently ethical people. A person who believes (at the actual moment of truth) that his or her actions are wrong will not take those actions -- to do so would go against his or her nature. If a well-balanced individual takes some action, therefore, it can be taken as given that those actions are considered by that person to be ethically sound.

      So... I could not be unethical (by my own standards) and remain (again by my own standards) happy or succesful; nor could any other man. Those who are unethical (by your standards or mine) and are happy are so because those actions which we may brand unethical are ethically acceptable to them, not because they have no regard for ethics at all.

      If the thing you wish to complain about is that many people who are (by your standards) succesful have different ethics than you, of course you've every right to say so -- but to claim that following ones' ethics brings neither happiness or success is clearly in the wrong.

    30. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by kcbrown · · Score: 2
      If the thing you wish to complain about is that many people who are (by your standards) succesful have different ethics than you, of course you've every right to say so -- but to claim that following ones' ethics brings neither happiness or success is clearly in the wrong.

      I'll certainly not dispute that ethics are something that varies with the individual. If you wish to label people who treat most other people as mere sheep to be fleeced as simply having "different" ethics, then I cannot dispute that either. All I can say is that it is precisely such people who, in general, seem to have the greatest amount of money and wield the greatest amount of power. The person who started this thread was dismayed by this situation, and so am I.

      The only other thing I can say is that you and others (which probably includes myself) who value the happiness and prosperity of others as well as themselves will remain happy only at the whim of those who have most of the power and money. As long as you're useful to those people, they'll leave you alone. But don't count on that remaining the case forever.

      I, for one, would probably not be terribly happy living in a police state. But that's exactly where we're headed, driven by those very people who, as you say, have "different" ethical beliefs. We're headed in that direction because it is in that direction that greater wealth and power lay in wait for those "differently" ethical people.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    31. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by kcbrown · · Score: 2
      Bad form to respond to my own message, I know, but I had to correct this:
      The only other thing I can say is that you and others (which probably includes myself) who value the happiness and prosperity of others ...

      The "which probably includes myself" was written with a different statement in mind, and I forgot to edit that part as well. Sigh. So it should read "which definitely includes myself".

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    32. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      I'm a little less cynical. I doubt that most people who (in practice) treat others as "sheep to be fleeced" do so consider (in theory) others in this way. I'm convinced that Bill Gates is certain that he's delivering the best product available to the consumer; that Hillary Rosen knows how she's helping to keep both art and honest businessmen alive; that John Ashcroft has no doubt that while legal experts may quibble over him bending the fifth and sixth amendments, he's doing right by seeking to protect the American people.

      Those who seek a police state do so because they believe that safety truly is more important than freedom -- not only for themselves, but for us also. Those who would try to legislate their personal morals do so because they're convinced that these rules accurately represent That Which Is Right.

      Do those who have the most power and money have the most influence over the rest of us? Of course! So it's always been, and so it will always be. (Okay, perhaps I'm the cynic now). Are those who have power going to have especially bad beliefs? There I'm not so sure. Perhaps these beliefs are so particularly bad because, when held by those in power, they're forced upon the rest of us; perhaps these same beliefs are often privately held, but in the usual case without any enforcement mechanism. This would imply, were it so, that those in power are not necessarily more ethically diverse than the rest of us -- that the rest of the world is also filled with those who would rely on strong government to protect the weak individual, those who believe that technologists should not be allowed to bring down businesses providing thousands of jobs, those who believe that all's fair in love, war... and business. The claim seems not extraordinary, and were it so then your demand might be not that those in power have the usual level of ethical restraint, but rather that they exercise far superior restraint (to keep the amount of damage their beliefs can do, even granted their superior resources, similar in scope to the average man). This strikes me as other than a reasonable request.

      As for my position -- next revolution we have, I'm opting for a more strictly constitutional republic, one without anything with the potential for misinterpretation of the elastic or commerce clauses. That such an opportunity may not come within my lifetime... well, a revolution will come when a revolution is needed. No reason to write less code or be excessively bothered because of it.

    33. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by kcbrown · · Score: 2
      As for my position -- next revolution we have, I'm opting for a more strictly constitutional republic, one without anything with the potential for misinterpretation of the elastic or commerce clauses. That such an opportunity may not come within my lifetime... well, a revolution will come when a revolution is needed. No reason to write less code or be excessively bothered because of it.

      Hmm...revolution. Yeah, right. Lessee...the civilians have rifles, pistols, and occasionally some light industrial explosives (with days to weeks of planning they might be able to put together something capable of destroying a medium sized building, a la Timothy McVeigh). The feds have tanks, lots of automatic, large caliber guns with military grade ammunition (your police-issue kevlar vest is no match for a slug fired from an M-16 using military-grade propellant), artillery, missiles, high-speed fighters, bombers, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons.

      This ain't the 1700's, you know, when the only difference between a civilian militia and a state-sponsored military was a few cannons and perhaps some training. In the 21st century, the government has a millions-to-one advantage in firepower over the civilian population, just from the nukes alone.

      The only hope an armed rebellion has is in getting the U.S. military to join in the fight, in which case there won't be much of a fight because there'll be nobody to fight against. Anything else is just a question of which side has the largest amount of military support. Ultimately, the civilians don't make any difference except for a way to deplete the other side's ammunition. In other words, cannon fodder.

      So please excuse me if I seem a bit skeptical about any revolution coming. It might happen, but if it does, it will fail. I have little reason to believe that the military will side with the civilians because military men are rigorously trained to take orders and to execute them no matter how unpleasant they might be.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    34. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Ya know, most succesful revolutions have been ones in which it's the military that revolted. Such things happen. But then, bloodless revolutions (I'd consider the passage of an "amendment" that completely rewrites the Constitution onesuch) are entirely conceivable. Then again, if some person or corporation were to find a small (poor!) government willing to cede sovereignty over a substantial tract of land (in return for a reasonable price) and set up (say) a Libertarian government there, I'd call that a revolutionary event also.

      Revolutions don't have to mean the civilian militias overpowering the military. What they mean (quoting from Webster's) is fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed; this implies nothing about the presence or lack of bloodshed.

    35. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by kcbrown · · Score: 2
      Ya know, most succesful revolutions have been ones in which it's the military that revolted. Such things happen.

      This is true. Of course, most (all?) such revolutions that have occurred in recent times (within the past, say, 50 years) resulted in a military dictatorship. So this doesn't make me feel any better.

      But then, bloodless revolutions (I'd consider the passage of an "amendment" that completely rewrites the Constitution onesuch) are entirely conceivable.

      Conceivable, but extremely unlikely, given that the people in power have all the firepower and no incentive to make such changes.

      Then again, if some person or corporation were to find a small (poor!) government willing to cede sovereignty over a substantial tract of land (in return for a reasonable price) and set up (say) a Libertarian government there, I'd call that a revolutionary event also.

      Dude, don't make me laugh. A corporation establishing a libertarian government?? Not on your life! Remember that the first, last, and only goal of a corporation is to make as much money as it can any way it can (legal or not doesn't matter any more, all that matters is whether or not they get caught and by whom they get caught. Microsoft is proof of this).

      Revolutions don't have to mean the civilian militias overpowering the military. What they mean (quoting from Webster's) is fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed; this implies nothing about the presence or lack of bloodshed.

      Since the type of change we're talking about won't happen as a result of the actions of those with power, it must happen as a result of the actions of those without. During the 1700s this was a possibility because of the relative parity between civilians and military. Not anymore.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    36. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by cduffy · · Score: 2

      A corporation establishing a libertarian government??

      Certainly -- I can see myself buying a few grand in stock in a corporation being founded for that purpose.

      Remember that the first, last and only goal of a corporation is to make as much money as it can any way it can

      Bullshit, utter and complete. The goal of a corporation is to do what its charter sets out for it to do. Some corporations have it in their charter to provide services ("non-profit corporations" is not an oxymoron!), some corporations have it in their charters to build a product (with the expectation that they'll make money off that product), some corporations... well, it varies. And just like people, corporations have things they care about (because remember -- it's eventually people who own and run them); they donate to charities, throw big parties, and make stupid business decisions because the officers happen to think it'll support a good cause (and having had to supervise one of the idiotic high school kids the CEO wanted to give a first programming job to, I've had firsthand experience of this). Far too much is made over liability to shareholders -- if a corporation's charter says that they're founded to produce the best floozles possible, any investor arguing that the officers have breached their duties because blue-sky research has been emphasized over immediate profits is going nowhere fast.

      Microsoft is proof of nothing -- by your logic, the existance of Tom Clancy would mean all fiction authors are republican.

    37. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by kcbrown · · Score: 2
      The goal of a corporation is to do what its charter sets out for it to do.

      No. The goal of a corporation is whatever its owners want it to be, and it's something that can (and will) change over time.

      Once a corporation is publicly traded, that goal quickly becomes "make as much money as possible". There may be a few exceptions, but they're just that: exceptions.

      So I can agree with you as far as private companies are concerned, but completely disagree when talking about publicly traded corps.

      It's the publicly traded corps that have most of the money and power, by the way, so they're the only ones that really matter in this discussion.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    38. Re:Where Does Honesty Get You? by cduffy · · Score: 1
      Once a corporation is publicly traded, that goal quickly becomes "make as much money as possible".
      Not necessarily. One of the reasons anti-corporatists claim corporations to be unethical is because their officers supposedly can be sued by shareholders for breach of duty in the event that they do something which fails to put profits first.

      That's bullshit.

      The courts generally only permit such lawsuits in cases of outright fraud on the part of the officers (though of course this depends on the state one happens to be incorporated in) -- and if what the officers are doing is what the charter sets out for the company to do, then their defense is utterly unassailable.

      Further, we're not talking about the corporations which currently hold money and power; we're talking about some theoretical corporation starting a Libertarian government. That corporation would most certainly have starting that government in its charter as its sole purpose -- if it tried only to invest the money given it and ignored its chartered purpose, the shareholders could sue the corporation for putting too much focus on profits!

      Incorporating (and thus effectively offering investors insurance for losses in excess of their initial investment, at the cost of substantial taxes) is just another way to help raise the capitol needed to start or run a business, like LLPs and others. There's nothing inherently good or evil about it.

      By the way, why are we using our +1s here?
  52. It's a Hoax Hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Priest finally got the thing working then Turner and Blockbuster paid him huge sums of money and told him to keep his trap shut. The hoax was made up to put an end to those meddling kids asking questions.

    Rut Roh Raggy.

  53. VCR? by eander315 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The investors were tricked using a VCR and lots of coax. I don't know about you, but investing hundreds of thousands of dollars (or even millions) without the chance to at least play quake over the super-fast "network" seems a little ignorant. Anyone who invested in this scam obviously let their greed get the better of them, and demonstrated that the rich are not always rich because they are extraordinarily smart.

  54. Investers Needed!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have just invented a magic black box in my basement. It is capible of sending and receiving an almost unlimited amount of data wirelessly. This new invention uses a spread spectrum chaos transmission to accomplish this. These chaos transmissions do not adversly effect current spectrum users, appearing as normal background noise on the spectrum. As this is based on chaos transmissions, it is inherently secure. Because of the nature of chaos transmissions, the range of this device is also virtually unlimited.

    These devices must be produced in pairs, as that is the only way that one is able to talk to another.

    Now, at present I only have 2 of these devices, and they are not yet stable enough that I will allow any one else to tinker with them. The configuration of these devices is so precise that I have difficulty maintaining it under the best of conditions.

    I built the 2 prototypes for about $300, I just need $30 mil or so to complete my work.

    Now, I know I don't have a background in electrical engeneering, but the thing works! Honest!

    Whats that, you have an expert thats been researching this? You want me to talk to him? Gee, uh...

    You won't give me the money without your expert reviewing it? Well, Ok. Hey, do you have Ted Turners phone number?

  55. How is this different? by moankey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Than anything that happened during the .com phase? Its just easier to blame one ex-con guy instead of small bands of Ivy League graduates who have rich mommy and daddy or politician parents. Just a smaller scale Enron.

    Same story different scale.

  56. No. Do not trust a priest. Or any authority. by Macrobat · · Score: 2
    No, no, no need for justice for them.
    I didn't realize being made fun of on Slashdot was a legal action.

    That does it. I can no longer trust police officers, firemen, doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, stock market folk, bankers, store managers, or anyone else. They've all got members who've committed felonies!
    Actually, I don't trust police officers, firemen, doctors, lawyers, programmers, stock brokers, bankers, or store managers. Anyone whose interests might conflict with mine, especially if they are charged with aiding or protecting me, should be subject to intense scrutiny, and be able to stand up under it. Lately, we've seen that the Church's actions cannot hold up under the light.

    The outrage at the scandals (note the use of the plural) is partly that sexual abuses happened, but mostly that the church has gone to such lengths to cover them up and keep those same priests active, in some cases returning them to positions with unsupervised contact with children. If there weren't a pattern of covering up, the innocent priests wouldn't be tainted by the guilt of their colleagues. But, by suppressing the truth, the Church has allowed uncertainty to spread, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

    --
    "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    1. Re:No. Do not trust a priest. Or any authority. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I didn't realize being made fun of on Slashdot was a legal action.

      Believe it or not, justice and such things as logic and "weighing evidence" can exist outside of the courts. America would be a better place if they did so more often.

      Anyone whose interests might conflict with mine, especially if they are charged with aiding or protecting me, should be subject to intense scrutiny, and be able to stand up under it. Lately, we've seen that the Church's actions cannot hold up under the light.

      Intense scrutiny is fine, but don't damn them all just because of some transgressions.

      The outrage at the scandals (note the use of the plural) is partly that sexual abuses happened, but mostly that the church has gone to such lengths to cover them up and keep those same priests active, in some cases returning them to positions with unsupervised contact with children. If there weren't a pattern of covering up, the innocent priests wouldn't be tainted by the guilt of their colleagues. But, by suppressing the truth, the Church has allowed uncertainty to spread, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

      Like I said before, this (the cover-up) is the church following through on its "forgiveness" dogma. I'm not Catholic, and I agree with those that say they forgave too much and worked too hard to keep it low, but I appreciate a moral authority that actually stands up for what they say.

      Think about it. Let's say that you're accused of molesting a child left in your care. EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T DO IT, the accusation still hurts you. There's merit to the church overreacting to protect those accused of child molestation, considering the overreaction that's made to people merely accused of the crime.

      (Yes, it's a horrible crime equal to or greater than murder. But, well, "Innocent until proven guilty.")

    2. Re:No. Do not trust a priest. Or any authority. by Macrobat · · Score: 2
      IANAL (or much of a moralist, for that matter), but your legal and moral rationalizations are amazing, and I don't mean that in a good way.

      Like I said before, this (the cover-up) is the church following through on its "forgiveness" dogma.
      "Forgiveness" does not make you legally exempt from the consequences of your actions. Although I'm no proponent of capital punishment, they do have chaplains at executions so the condemned can unburden their souls of sin. That doesn't stop the executions from going forth, though.

      There's merit to the church overreacting to protect those accused of child molestation, considering the overreaction that's made to people merely accused of the crime...(Yes, it's a horrible crime equal to or greater than murder. But, well, "Innocent until proven guilty.")
      Nope, wrong. The fact that some people overreact to an accusation of guilt in no way justifies wilfully interfering with an investigation. If I shoot someone, hand you the gun, and run north down main street, you can't clean my fingerprints off of it and tell the police I headed south. That makes you an accomplice, and you can be charged with tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice, even though I haven't been convicted yet.

      --
      "Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
    3. Re:No. Do not trust a priest. Or any authority. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What investigation was interfered with??

    4. Re:No. Do not trust a priest. Or any authority. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      "Forgiveness" does not make you legally exempt from the consequences of your actions.

      I didn't say that it did. I didn't say that the Catholic Church did the right thing.

      I just said that, in doing the wrong thing, their morals were at least in the right place.

      It's like shooting a lawyer. Sure, you might be follwing a good moral code, but you're still doing the wrong thing.

    5. Re:No. Do not trust a priest. Or any authority. by Darby · · Score: 1

      I just said that, in doing the wrong thing, their morals were at least in the right place.

      You are a truly sickening person.

      To act in accordance with their supposed morals, they should have publically admitted the sins, allowed the human waste responsible to publicly beg forgiveness *and* face the legal consequences of his actions. You know, give unto god that which is god's and give unto Ceasar that which is his? Justice in a country on earth is that country's Ceasar's.
      What any sane, moral person or organization would have done *at the very fucking least* is to keep children away from such a monster forgiven or not.
      There is a huge difference between forgiving someone and inflicting them on someone else's children.
      The fact that this has happened more times than I can remember ( but a *lot* ) in my lifetime and the church has consistently taken action to protect their name rather than the people they claim to protect is sick. The fact that in at least several of the cases they acted by moving the scum to a different country making extradition difficult is, I'm sure, merely a coincidence.

      I was polite in a previous unrelated post, but you are one sick, deluded fuck.

  57. jacksonville.com engaging demonstration by JimBobJoe · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was deeply convinced and profoundly amazed by the magic box demonstration they have on their site.

    Now click here or cliquez ici for those who speak spanish in the audience, and, yes you must have flash...everybody must have flash!

    So, note, if you press the "compatibility test" you will see how the blue flows through the magic box far better than it flows through your 56k...box. Yes I know compatibility means how compatible something is, not how it compares to something else, but ignore the words...just watch the test. Again...see how the blue flooooows through the magic box box...but still crawls along on the T3!

    In fact, if you press the "test" button next to the magic box box, you will note that the blue comes through sharply, clearly, quickly every time! That's how reliable *your* customers will find the magic box every single time!

    [sorry...i couldn't help it...my parents were in Amway...i've seen it all before]

    1. Re:jacksonville.com engaging demonstration by LinuxGeek · · Score: 3

      The speeds in the flash demo are wrong. The 56k modem 'demo' is almost 50% finished when the cable/T1 1.5Mbps bar finishes. Someone is either FoS or has no real idea how the data rates relate to each other.

      --

      Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:jacksonville.com engaging demonstration by hendridm · · Score: 2

      > [sorry...i couldn't help it...my parents were in Amway...i've seen it all before]

      LOL, I had a couple of college roommates that fell into the Amway scheme. I've heard this bullshit before. They actually thought they were going to get rich with their "business", which I heard time and time again. Perhaps me making fun of them lead to their ultimate demise through a lack of self-confidence.

      Hmmmm, no wonder we can't find jobs. Apparently some of us forgot to attend How to Get a Clue 101. I'm sure it was an evening class on Friday or something...

    3. Re:jacksonville.com engaging demonstration by smyle · · Score: 1

      Maybe their comparison was off, but their specs for the magic box is correct - 222mbps = 0.222bps = .02775 bytes/sec ~= 100 characters/hour

      --

      Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann

  58. Hal Puthoff by buhr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perhaps this is of interest. Hal Puthoff, the "Texas physicist considered an expert in the concepts Priest said he was using", is---I believe---also known as Harold Puthoff.

    Together with Russel Targ, this infamous team produced, let us say, somewhat credulous studies of spoon-bending psychic Uri Geller's remote viewing abilities. They also have the dubious distinction of having provided some of the best evidence that positive feedback improves ESP ability. Tragically, no skeptic who uses reasonable experimental controls seems to be able to duplicate their results.

    The fact that Priest's box has something to do with Puthoff's area of expertise is hilarious! I wonder if the author of the article was being *intentionally* ironic.

    1. Re:Hal Puthoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that Priest's box has something to do with Puthoff's area of expertise is hilarious! I wonder if the author of the article was being *intentionally* ironic.


      The "area of expertise" in question was Puthoff's no-less-nutty "zero point energy" theory, mentioned in the article. (Zero-point energy is a real aspect of quantum field theory; using it as a source of free energy, as Puthoff claims is possible, is just a flight of fancy.)
    2. Re:Hal Puthoff by mellonhead · · Score: 1


      An excellent book on Puthoff, Targ, et al: Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Psychic Spies

    3. Re:Hal Puthoff by Thurn+und+Taxis · · Score: 1

      Oh, no, Puthoff is definitely an expert in the concepts Priest was using -- scamming other people out of money!

      --
      On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
  59. heh.. by bo0push3r · · Score: 1

    the speed test demo on that site is fuQ'd. it says that 56k speeds are based on 56kbps speeds and DSL/Cable/T1 speeds are based on 1.5mb avg. interestingly enough, the 56k test bar goes at nearly half the speed of the DSL/Cable/T1 bar.

    What 56k modem are they using and where can I find one!?

  60. If they had asked /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could have saved the investors millions.

    or better yet....

    If this lame scam netted the guy 6 million bucks, can't we come up with a better scam?

  61. Anarchy, Cisco and other various comments by NoWhere+Man · · Score: 2

    I remember reading some of the Anarchy text files from textfiles.com about 3-4 years back, and some of the stuff they came up with was ingenious. This was childs play. How could anyone just give money to someone without any proof or analysis of the equipement? There are litterally hundreds of communications companies out there developping technology. I am sure these investors were not techs themselves. Not one of them was skeptical enough to bring someone with a little insite to these presentations? I think perhaps these companies got what was comming to them. A wake up call to reality.

    Though I do remember reading a story about Cisco on slashdot, not too long ago, about a similar technology. Something about 10mbps over barb wire? Here is the previous link to that. Perhaps his so called "vision" was not completely out of the range of possibility.

    --

    "Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
    1. Re:Anarchy, Cisco and other various comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also another release on Cisco's website from March about deploying a 15Mbp/s LRE system in North Finland.

      http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/prod_031402.html

      Not sure if this was already posted to /. or not.

  62. Investors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...are stupid. I was a dotcom CTO and I saw my CEO lose his $20MM company in less than 9 months after he started dealing with investors and investment bankers.

    I'm still not sure what the motivation was, but I think the fundamental problem is that investors scam themselves -- they latch onto an opportunity, convince themselves it's a golden opportunity, and that's how the bomb is set.

    The investors who came in and merged with our company are essentially bankrupt a year later. The first CEO (founder) is gond and lost about $5MM of his personal stash. The new CEO has lost pretty much the same thing (he keeps floating money to the company so it can make payroll and rent -- he has enough to be driving that new uglyassed 7 series B). The company is still there, you probably recognize the name, and it's a vacuous shell of its former self.

    There's a NYTs Business page article about what happened when analysts started becoming salespeople.

  63. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by generic-man · · Score: 1

    We used to have them in the dorms at CMU (I hope they have removed 'em all by now and replaced then with a jack that doesn't look like it belongs in an evil scientist's lab).

    Nope. We still use them, and they still cost something like $25 brand new. Fortunately, since baluns are worthless outside CMU, there's a very healthy secondhand market for them.

    --
    For more information, click here.
  64. Wow by RedWolves2 · · Score: 1

    That was one of the best articles I read in a while. It read like a book. It kept me reading to find out what happened. Someone could elaborate on this and make millions from a book inspired by this article...um...forget I said anything.

  65. They just figured out this was a scam? by felscher · · Score: 1

    I used to work at Southeast Network Services in Jacksonville a few years ago, and heard of this guy. As a matter of fact, our sysAdmin went to work for hem.

    I was just a tech support guy, and even I was too smart for this gimmick!

  66. Why he got away with it for so long. by Restil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, notice that there were actual experts that quoted that the invention was "implausable, but not impossible". At the same time, dsl, while not in widespread use, was definitely on the marketing tip of many a phone company. Broadband over regular phone lines was definitely possible, this guy just happened to be doing it faster. The experts weren't going to outright denounce it without at least LOOKING at the technology first.

    Secondly, this was the heyday of the dotcom era. Everyone was getting rich, and there seemed to be no end in sight. However, there were a lot of investors with a sizeable amount of cash that simply hadn't gotten their piece of the preverbial dotcom pie yet. And seeing how the phone companies were developing competing technology, the sense of urgency was real.

    As for criminal records, people are surprisingly lax about that sort of thing. Especially today, its so easy to run a criminal background check on someone, everyone assumes that someone has already done it, and doesn't bother. When other people are dumping multiple millions of $$$ into a company, and those people are well respected, intellegent people, it simply doesn't occur not to take the guy at his word. The only concern is getting in on it before its too late.

    Scam artists, despite the vulgarity of their profession, are actually very talented and very good at what they do. They are literally experts in the art of social engineering. Anyone can scam a gullible nobody. Just send them a flyer in the mail and you'll have checks flying into your PO box. But to convince someone who's worth millions to give you a blank check with no verification that you can actually do what you say you can do. That's genius. Or it speaks very poorly for the competancy of the multimillionaires, which might just go to show that you don't need to necessarily be smart to be rich. And you don't have to be honest to get rich. And people might be too embarrased to get back at you once you're done fleecing them. Its a strange world indeed.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
    1. Re:Why he got away with it for so long. by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      "Scam artists, despite the vulgarity of their profession, are actually very talented and very good at what they do."

      Contrary to popular belief, most con artists are neither smart nor clever. The success of a scam depends almost entirely on the greed of the victim -- the greedier the person, the more gullible they are and the more likely they are to be taken.

      The vast majority of scams are not clever or skillfully executed -- in fact most are obvious hoaxes -- but the hoax is only obvious to someone not blinded by greed. The vast majority of scams succeed simply because the victim's greed causes then to suspend disbelief. Just like the gambler who's afraid to walk away from a slot machine because it might pay out soon, the victims of this guy couldn't walk away because of their greed --- they were afraid that someone else would cash in on this "invention"

    2. Re:Why he got away with it for so long. by Broccolist · · Score: 2

      I read an interesting article touching on this recently. I think, as the article says, a large part of it is anticipated regret: how bad you would feel if you didn't invest any money and it did pay off.

  67. Other examples by Dalaram · · Score: 0

    While taking circuits 2, my professor was an older electrical engineer who worked for GE in its earlier days. He described the countless black box items that passed by him each day. Each time, the case was the same. "This box will boost power nearly 20 times! You just cant disassemble it" So they would poke the box, and prod it, and test the information on it. Each time, it usually turned out to be something simple like a DC source hooked up to a simple OP-amp that would boost any signals that ir recieved X times. A clever little hoax, but it learns a lesson. Any good engineer should only trust what he can take apart and put back together wil similar results.

    --
    all my .sig are suck
  68. The Quest for the Holy Grail by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Funny
    "He had a Holy Grail that was the telecommunications equivalent of cold fusion," Mons said.

    I'm picturing a bunch of companies with copper networks led by King Arthur galloping with a bunch of coconuts up to a castle. The man (who somehow looks like John Cleese with a peculiar french accent) at the top of the castle says that this is a castle of people with fiber networks.

    King Arthur: If you give us food and shelter, you can join us on our quest for the Holy Grail.
    Frenchman: Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen. He's already got one, you see?
    King Arthur: What? Are you sure you've got one?
    Frenchman: Oh yes, it's very nice.
    King Arthur: If you don't show us the grail, we shall take this castle by force!
    Frenchman: You don't frighten us you copper-based pigdogs! Go and boil your buttons you sons of silly person. I blow my nose at you so cold, Arthur King. You and all your Silly English Kniggits! I fart in your general direction.... etc

    At that point, the Fiber Optic French people catapult a gigantic light-based switch at them.

    King Arthur and his Men: Run Away! Run Away!

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:The Quest for the Holy Grail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

  69. I suggest "sceptical", not "cynical" by WetCat · · Score: 1

    Cynical == people who use profanity as a normal words and think about most "unthinkable" stuff like rape, coitus as of normal...
    Sceptical == people who don't trust the demonstrations without great repeatability of them and solid theory under them.

    1. Re:I suggest "sceptical", not "cynical" by shepd · · Score: 1

      Your definition of cynical is off.

      Courtesy of dictionary.com:

      cynical Pronunciation Key (sn-kl)
      adj.
      1. Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns; skeptical of the motives of others: a cynical dismissal of the politician's promise to reform the campaign finance system.
      2. Selfishly or callously calculating: showed a cynical disregard for the safety of his troops in his efforts to advance his reputation.
      3. Negative or pessimistic, as from world-weariness: a cynical view of the average voter's intelligence.
      4. Expressing jaded or scornful skepticism or negativity: cynical laughter.

      Definition 4 fits, and so does the latter half of definition 1. Also definition 3 fits. One could even work it so definition 2 fits.

      I've been called cynical before, by a teacher of all people. I've never once cursed the teacher or anything like that. I only explained the reason I was missing at an awards ceremony (where I was awarded one) was because my past experience had shown me that the awards weren't given for superiority in their separate categories, but due to classism.

      I don't think about rape as normal (however coitus doesn't seem at all abnormal... it seems to me without that none of us would exist, no?). I'm just a little more jaded towards the motives of society than others.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    2. Re:I suggest "sceptical", not "cynical" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its SKEPTICAL you fucking prick. If you're going to make suggestions, at least try and possess a teeny, tiny bit of knowledge on the subject first.

    3. Re:I suggest "sceptical", not "cynical" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your definition of cynical is very unusual. A cynical person is not evil, a cynical person is someone who assumes other people are.

      My (admittedly cynical) definition of cynical would be "disillusioned".

    4. Re:I suggest "sceptical", not "cynical" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sceptical is an alternative spelling, dumbshoes.

    5. Re:I suggest "sceptical", not "cynical" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the definition given of 'cynical' sounds more like the reader confusing 'cynical' with 'sinful' (they do have similar pronunciation)

      sinful : [adj]
      1: characterized by iniquity; wicked because it is believed to be a sin; "iniquitous deeds"; "ungodly acts"
      2: having committed unrighteous acts;

  70. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof...."
    Pop-skeptic dogma. Science requires of all claims adequate proof for provisional acceptance.

  71. No, they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This assinine Carl Sagan quote really needs to die.

    As far as good science goes, extraordinary claims are no different than mundane claims. Facts are facts, and claims are claims. No matter how insane my thesis may sound, if I have sound facts to back it up, then THAT IS HOW SCIENCE IS DONE. I do NOT require "extraordinary evidence".

    Galileo claimed that the moons of Jupiter orbited Jupiter. What was his "extraordinary" proof? "Look through my damn telescope and see it for yourself." The priests of his day required extraordinary proof (a "miracle") before they would believe it.

  72. Hey by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Hey isnt that the same trick Bill Gates pulled with some technology - "windows" or something, anyway, this is just proof that most business people with money have no clue and need someone else to take their money for them.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  73. Better idea by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Hey i've got a better idea: why not lay decent lines and comms networks for everyone and not flog your crap aged phone systems to people, considering data far outnumbers analog voice on all systems.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  74. Huh? VisionTek? by rainwalker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Craichy and a friend gave Priest about $500,000 for a stake in VisionTek, the company the Priests formed to sell their invention.

    Not that I would accuse this article of being a hoax itself, but VisionTek is a company that makes [excellent] video cards....I use them in my boxes. Poking around Google yielded no companies with similiar names....what gives?

    1. Re:Huh? VisionTek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Take the cards apart. There's a VCR inside.

    2. Re:Huh? VisionTek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny! Mod parent up!

  75. You're saying Ted Turner fell for this?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not the Ted Turner I know. And you're saying not one but two U.S. Senators fell for it too? No way!!

  76. PT Barnum was right! by SWTP · · Score: 1

    A very intersting story. So this guy invented coax and vcr huh. ;)

    I forgot the exact phrase from Barnum but its goes like: "One born every minute". Or the one from a WC Fields old move: "Never give a sucker an even break!"

    ----------

    You can infinitly compress data down to nothing super easy.... It pulling it back out that hard. ;)

    1. Re:PT Barnum was right! by Vegeta99 · · Score: 2

      "A fool and his money are soon parted" I believe.

    2. Re:PT Barnum was right! by SWTP · · Score: 1

      Sounds right.

      If its too good to be true then it is. :)

  77. Wow, how can i contact this man? by CuteAlien · · Score: 1

    Beeing an awfully rich investor i really didn't have the time to read through the whole article, but sending realtime video with an old modem sounds incredible! Damn, even some big companies are investing already into it and i didn't hear anything from him so far. I want to be part of the next big thing... how can i get this man to allow me to invest in his company?

    1. Re:Wow, how can i contact this man? by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Why, that is easy, friend. Simply bend over, hands flat on the floor. [sound of Vaseline jar being opened and then a zipper]

  78. A Couple of Other Scams by RhettLivingston · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An acquaintance of mine is particularly susceptable to these. He's a real dreamer type who made lots of money on one gamble (purchased cellular telephone bandwidth rights shortly before cellular telephones took off) and then lost it all on two others.

    The scam that took most of it was a guy who was going to wire every stadium box in America with fiber and equip them with dual processor computers and 42" displays (in 1997 time frame). Basically, the idea was to let the rich simultaneously surf the Internet, see their email, get special game statistics, watch replays, etc while watching the game. Even if he did it, I never understood how he was going to make the millions of investment money back. This was an example of a scam that used plausible technology, but never had a sustainable business model. The investment capital was just being pocketed.

    The other was actually a perpetual energy scam. Yes, people still fall for that one. This was some sort of device with multiple rings made of just the right metals and spinning in different directions or something. Somehow, it supposedly extracted energy from the Earth's magnetic field. I researched it a couple of years ago and found that the guy has been running the scam for over 40 years. This guy's big hook was religious based at the time. He claimed to have died in a traffic accident with a ruptured aorta and been miraculously brought back to life. When he awoke, the schematics were in his head for this device. They had been given to him directly by God. He was giving this story from the pulpit at really conservative Christian churches across the SouthEast and attracting all sorts of investors.

    I wonder why there is no suspected scam site on the Internet? Maybe the legal risks would be too great...

    1. Re:A Couple of Other Scams by Phil+Karn · · Score: 1
      I wonder why there is no suspected scam site on the Internet? Maybe the legal risks would be too great...

      Here's a good one for you:

      www.crank.net

  79. Outrageous! by LionKimbro · · Score: 2
    Every time, he wore out his partners -- rich partners like Blockbuster and Intel, prominent partners like former U.S. Sen. Paula Hawkins and the son of Atlanta media czar Ted Turner, partners who brought him to Silicon Valley and partners who brought him to Capitol Hill.

    I'm crying, I'm really crying.

    "There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen."

  80. skeptic(al) not cynic(al) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The use of cynic(al) here is inappropriate.

    He wasn't asking to to believe in a higher ideal
    or asking you to believe in some general goodness
    of people; he was asking to believe HIM about some
    specific device.

    Your skepticism is entirely natural and
    healthy!

  81. fa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like it does work, provided that its real purpose was to attract the interest of our society's pool of village idiots. While I'm at it, I'd like to start a completely offtopic debate: Assuming that 1) there is a God, creator of the universe 2) this God invented right and wrong and serves as the final judge of everything, including what happens to people after they die:

    Will Bill Gates go to Hell? Why or why not?

  82. Shannon's law is still safe from Townsend... by bani · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...townsend didn't surpass it!

    The "classic" limitation on analogue dialup modems was the quantization error introduced by the analogue to digital conversion on both ends.

    However -- 56k depends on one end of the connection being DIGITAL . You're eliminating quant error on one side of the connection, thus you can get better downstream speeds. Upstream speeds, if you notice, are still limited to 33.6k due to quant error on the end user's modem.

    There is no magic here. No laws are being surpassed or violated here. Shannon is still safe.

    1. Re:Shannon's law is still safe from Townsend... by jrp2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The "classic" limitation on analogue dialup modems was the quantization error introduced by the analogue to digital conversion on both ends.

      Technically, you are quite correct, I will not argue with you on that fact from a technical perspective. From a perception perspective, he did indeed. Most folks thought, based on Shannon's statements, that we were done and could not squeeze any more data through using a voice channel. So, in many ways, he really did.

      However -- 56k depends on one end of the connection being DIGITAL . You're eliminating quant error on one side of the connection, thus you can get better downstream speeds. Upstream speeds, if you notice, are still limited to 33.6k due to quant error on the end user's modem

      Hmmm, tell that to the folks using V.92 modems with upstream PCM that claim up to 45K upstream. I have not been involved with them, so can't give you any figures, but I do know that it works for some percentage of the population. From what I understand, quantization is the issue that is keeping it down to 45K, but acquiring timing was the main issue preventing PCM modulation from working in the upstream (A to D) direction. That has now been broken as they figured how to do timing. Yes, this still requires digital on one end, plus I suspect not too many ISPs have installed gear to service it.

      Is this technically breaking Shannon's Law? I am not sure enough to make the bold statement that it is.

      --
      The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
    2. Re:Shannon's law is still safe from Townsend... by Phil+Karn · · Score: 3, Informative
      Is this technically breaking Shannon's Law? I am not sure enough to make the bold statement that it is.

      Nope, it's not breaking the Shannon limit, because nothing can break it. It's impossible. So if somebody does manage exceed the "Shannon limit" on some channel, it can only be because it was incorrectly calculated.

      The Shannon capacity in bits/sec of a noisy, band-limited channel is C = B*log2(1+SNR).

      So to compute the Shannon limit, you need to know both the bandwidth and the signal-to-noise ratio of the channel. Both numbers can vary quite a bit for plain copper pairs. The signal-to-noise ratio is affected by things like attenuation, crosstalk from other pairs and transmit power limitations to avoid crosstalk to other pairs. And bandwidth is affected by the length of the cable, its insulation and wire gauge, the presence of loading coils, etc.

      That's why DSL speeds vary so much from one place to another, and why it's no big deal to send at much faster rates than DSL over short (a few hundred meters max) twisted pairs that have been carefully constructed (i.e., Cat 5 cable).

  83. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "If anyone shows you a "magic box" but won't let you touch it, change the setup of the demonstration, or suggest other ways to test it, RUN !"

    There was an interesting documentary on either A&E or Discovery (one of those two) based on the book Longitude. Somebody was talking about Harrison's apprehensiveness about letting others (ie. the Astronomer Royal) poke around inside of his invention and he made an interesting point: If you really did have a magic box and it did what you said it did, would you want potential competitors seeing its insides?

  84. use MPEG by Pope · · Score: 1

    One keyframe, lots of delta frames :)

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  85. See, this is why we need the scientific method by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just a little while back there was a thread on ESP and the paranormal. Many people there were questioning as why that sort of stuff must be called pseudo science and why science demands such rigorus proofs. THIS is why. Rigged demonstrantions, people holding their own intrests over that of science and so on. For something amazing to be accepted as real it MUST be repeatable and independantly tested. Otherwsie you have things like this happen. Crooks show people something they WANT to be real, and they believe. It is important to have well defined methods for testing such claims.

    The psychics of the world are no different, they demonstrate their powers only on their own terms. They won't submit to a real scientific test because they are frauds, and they know it will fail. Anytime someone tries to sell you on something that you have no way of independantly verifying, be careful. They might be well meaning but more often than not, they are a con man.

  86. Cynicism = Realism + Idealism by LionKimbro · · Score: 2

    The cynics I've known were convinced that all human behavior was motivated wholly by self-interest, which, even if it is true in an ultimate sense, is an attitude guaranteed to close your mind.

    That's not true. Read Mark Twain's perspective on the issue.

    Here's a snip:

    Y.M. If we grant, for the sake of argument, that your scheme and the other schemes aim at and produce the same result-- RIGHT LIVING--has yours an advantage over the others?

    O.M. One, yes--a large one. It has no concealments, no deceptions. When a man leads a right and valuable life under it he is not deceived as to the REAL chief motive which impels him to it--in those other cases he is.

    Y.M. Is that an advantage? Is it an advantage to live a lofty life for a mean reason? In the other cases he lives the lofty life under the IMPRESSION that he is living for a lofty reason. Is not that an advantage?

    O.M. Perhaps so. The same advantage he might get out of thinking himself a duke, and living a duke's life and parading in ducal fuss and feathers, when he wasn't a duke at all, and could find it out if he would only examine the herald's records.

    And continuing later on...

    Y.M. Then you believe that such tendency toward doing good as is in men's hearts would not be diminished by the removal of the delusion that good deeds are done primarily for the sake of No. 2 instead of for the sake of No. 1?

    O.M. That is what I fully believe.

    Y.M. Doesn't it somehow seem to take from the dignity of the deed?

    O.M. If there is dignity in falsity, it does. It removes that.

    Y.M. What is left for the moralists to do?

    O.M. Teach unreservedly what he already teaches with one side of his mouth and takes back with the other: Do right FOR YOUR OWN SAKE, and be happy in knowing that your NEIGHBOR will certainly share in the benefits resulting.

    Y.M. Repeat your Admonition.

    O.M. DILIGENTLY TRAIN YOUR IDEALS UPWARD AND STILL UPWARD TOWARD A SUMMIT WHERE YOU WILL FIND YOUR CHIEFEST PLEASURE IN CONDUCT WHICH, WHILE CONTENTING YOU, WILL BE SURE TO CONFER BENEFITS UPON YOUR NEIGHBOR AND THE COMMUNITY.

    I recommend reading the whole essay, "What is Man".

    If more people were cynics, the world would not only remove charlatans (though incidentally, I'm quite happy with charlatans who rob robbers; It's much better than people who aid and assist robbers for a days wages), but the world would be full of wonderful friendly people.

    What is a cynic? As far as I can tell, a cynic is a person who is a realist and an idealist.

    To be a cynic, you have to be a realist. You've already helped demonstrate that, when you wote "even if it is true in an ultimate sense". A realist looking at human behavior will give that serious attention, and meditate deeply on its consequences, as has Mark Twain.

    But to be a cynic, you also have to be an idealist. That seems contradictory; How's that? Because in order to complain about the way things are, you have to have some idea of how things should be. You have to be an idealist.

    If you are a realist but not an idealist, you become someone who is content ripping people off, or just doing whatever you need to survive, the effects of whatever it is be damned. This describes 90% of people, I believe. Perhaps 10-20% of people are content ripping others off, the other 70-80% are quite happy just doing whatever they need to do in order to survive comfortably, effects on others be damned. Being a Realist while discarding ideals is what gives the Right a bad name.

    If you are an idealist but not a realist, you run the danger of trying to do good things, but failing miserably, because you are out of touch with reality. At worst, such failure can be dangerous. Being an Idealist while discarding reality is what gives the Left a bad name.

    When you have both Idealism and Realism, you are a Cynic.

    Incidentally, there is a name for what effective Cynics are called- that name is "SAINT".

    Did Mark Twain reach Sainthood? In my eyes, Yes, because he has had a very powerful positive influence on my life, and the lives of many others, even beyond death.

  87. First hand experience... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *WARNING* I have not checked or preview this, and am not exactly sure on how accurate it is (I wasn't really paying attention to it at the time) so contine at your own risk.

    I have some first hand experience with this particular scam. Localnet Communications (or something like that) was a subsidiary under this Zekko company, and they were promising the same technology. My dad became a "recruiter" in a sort of pyramid scheme (more on that later). He visited a few people and tried to get them to invest and attend a few demos they held. I went with him on one occasion to a demo, and I was very skeptical. They were promsing all this speed and technology, but never once in the demo I went to did they actually demonstrate anything. They did have a computer and tv set up in there, but I forget exactly what it is they showed. Anyway, they did come out with a WebTV like system. In addition to surfing the web, etc, they offered a service where you could use some office suite (Lotus?) over the phone line and save your files on their server. At least I think that's how it was. Also, the Localnet set-top box had a PCMCIA card on the front, for "technology upgrades" (super-high-speed over regular copper telephone wires, for example). All it was used for was to store your user info (account, dial up phone number, password, etc), like a smart card. It wasn't that bad for just web browsing (just vanilla html, anyway). I think it even had e-mail capabilities. Anyway, they also started providing long distance phone services. That's where the pyramid scheme was. You were to go out and recruit other people to go out and sell. You made a commision on every sale and a smaller commision on every sale your recruits made. My dad got a few recruits and made a couple hundred dollars the first 4 months or so, then got out of it when all this stuff about a hoax was spreading around. I told him so :) . I'm not sure how accurate this all is, but that's how I remember it.

    Anyway, we actually still have the system, keyboard, remote, and "smart card." It still works and once I got it out and wanted to see if I could connect. I put in my local ISPs number and account information. It dialed out and connected, but it tries to go to the default homepage (localnet's now non-existant homepage) and times out and disconnects. Well, I'm assuming that's what's happening. If I could get a smart card reader/editor or something...
    Anyway, here's a link to probably the only picture of this thing on the net. Nothing spectacular. It's on earthlink's support page. We're holding on to it in hopes it will be a collector's item and bring us some cash.

    Also, don't visit Palatka. It's a shithole. I've lived here since 1987 or 88, so I know. If I sound like an idiot, that's why. Jackass.

    And one more thing, unrelated. I cringe when Al Michaels yells out "A FACIAL!" when someone dunks in someone elses face. He either has no clue, or is an extreme pervert.

  88. Well they should have demanded better tests by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Someone claims they can do something like that? Fine, make them come to YOU and demo it, and have your engineers look at the device. A full look, not a hands-off, across the room kind of thing.

    Cisco receantly had a new DSL technology they wanted to sell us on, they call it Long Range Eithernet. Allegedly, it gets 10mbps, both directions over regular phone lines at distances of around a mile. Now Cisco is a big, reputable company, not some small time con artist and we are friends with the engineer in this city. Doesn't matter, we STILL wanted to test it for ourselves. So they sent us an LRE switch and two remote units. We tested it, and indeed it does perform as advertised.

    Now we know for a fact that it works. This wasn't a smoke and mirrorrs test, it was conducted in our lab, by our people. They weren't even around (the just loaned it to us for a month and said have fun). We got to run all the tests we chose on it. All this, for a product from a reputable company. But you know what? That's how you need to do it. Don't rely on what the people who make something tell you, demand to test it yourself. See if it works as advertised in YOUR environment.

    This is doubly true for new technologies. Make the inventor bring his tech to your labs, demo it on your terms, and have your people run the tests. Then you know it isn't being rigged because you can check to make sure everything is on the level. I'm not talking looking at some poorly drawn semi-plausable circut diagrams, I'm talking about having the actual prototypes in your lab and under the gun.

    1. Re:Well they should have demanded better tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming that people invest in companies based on due diligence, research, checking with people who know what they're doing, etc., but that's just not the case. VC's only do the most rudimentary technical due diligence, rather basing their decisions on their "innate understanding of technology", and "gut feel", i.e., they play perfectly into the hands of these con artists. In order to do proper due diligence, you have to admit that this guy over here knows more about technology than you do, and you have to get over the "uncomfortable issue" that you're making sure that the guy isn't lying to you.

      Mostly, this guy worked with personal introductions, pulling the real sucker on someone who is not investing (and has their guard down), then getting that person to unwittingly shill for them to the real investor. The real investor assumes that the first guy (his friend) checked this thing out before vouching for it, and doesn't ask the tough question of his friend. Once the interest is there, the check is pretty much signed, since nobody wants to admit that they've been taken for a ride. "You checked them out? Sure, yeah, I checked them out".

      I worked for a firm that tried to do something similar to this (not on this scale) and got canned for whistleblowing to their investors.

  89. What I don't see.. by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    is where they are bringing this guy up on fraud charges and suing his ass into the ground/ruining his life.

    Am I missing something?

  90. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
    "If anyone shows you a "magic box" but won't let you touch it, change the setup of the demonstration, or suggest other ways to test it, RUN !"

    Anyone who's seen the Wizard of Oz should know this.

    Wizard indeed.

  91. Sounds like the Keeley Motor by Animats · · Score: 2

    The Keeley Motor, circa 1872, was a similar scam. That one also went on for a long time. J.P. Morgan considered investing, but brought along Edison to take a look. Edison noticed that the motor was vibrating in sync with the exhaust from a gas engine across the street, said a few words to Morgan, and Morgan declined to invest. But others did. The scam dragged on for years. After Keely's death, a team from Scientific American examined his lab, and discovered compressed-air plumbing hidden in the walls and floors, with a big tank in the basement.

    1. Re:Sounds like the Keeley Motor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were GAS engines in 1872? And what did the exhaust have to do with the compressed air tank in the basement? Compressed air tanks in 1872?

    2. Re:Sounds like the Keeley Motor by Animats · · Score: 2
      Gas engines in 1872? Sure. Otto engines were first produced in 1867, and there were earlier engines than that, but not very efficient ones. Small engines powered off an illuminating gas main were the simplest small powerplant you could get in that era.

      Yes, a compressed air tank, a steel sphere four feet in diameter, hidden under the floor. Plus hidden brass plumbing to connect it to the "motor". "The Keely Motor Fraud." Scientific American, January 28, 1899, pg. 56-60."

      The Keely Motor sounds so similar to this networking scam, which apparently involved running a coax inside the power cord, through the plug, and through an outlet strip. The Keely hype was even somewhat similar, with "vibratory energy" instead of "zero-point energy".

    3. Re:Sounds like the Keeley Motor by MartinB · · Score: 2

      Here's the article from Scientific American

      --

      The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's

  92. Kudos to this guy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can someone be fooled by a VCR inside a computer case? Wouldn't the TELEVISION set on top of the 'computer' be a giveaway? Even if you use a video monitor, wouldn't the interlaced 60Hz picture tell you something???????????

    And how come when a scam is in the software domain, like the whole late 90s Web crapfest, it's a revolution, but a hardware scam is just a scam?

    Anyways, I might not like the guy, but he has serious balls and no matter what happens to him, no one can take away the years of high-life he has enjoyed!

  93. A little bit of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    "I thought I would be the guy that finally got this technology developed," Strong said. "That was my supreme arrogance."

    It never ceases to amaze me how many nontechnical business people - people who are unable to actually produce a single useful thing from scratch - are under the delusion that they are the people that produce technology.

    The real cons take place when investors steal the perpetual rights to powerful technology developed by financially unsophisticated geeks for a few paychecks.

    It's nice to see someone putting something over on the real thieves for a change.

  94. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Sunday, May 5, 2002

    Last modified at 12:09 a.m. on Sunday, May 5, 2002

    -----

    Madison Priest has said he first developed his magic box in this metal workshop outside his former home in Palatka. The Priests have since moved to a 6,000-square-foot waterfront home in a gated community in St. Augustine.
    -- Special

    -------

    Is it a 'magic box' or a high-tech hoax?
    Northeast Florida man attracted millions from investors who now say they were scammed

    By Matthew I. Pinzur
    Times-Union staff writer

    Madison Priest's history is filled with people who call him a con artist, a geek who invented nothing more than a beautiful lie.

    None of them, though, can prove it.

    He appeared with his magic box, promising it could convert plain copper phone lines that run to almost every home in the country into greased-lightning pipelines for data and video, four times faster than the most advanced fiber-optic cables. It was a magic box that would shock communications like the television had, transform technology like personal computers had, redefine entertainment like Nintendo had. It was a magic box he built from $100 worth of spare parts.

    He choreographed elaborate demonstrations, quickening the pulses of engineers shocked by its innovation and capitalists stunned by its potential.

    He asked for money and received it, sometimes more than a million dollars at a time, enough to move him from a cobblestone street in Palatka to a gated community in St. Augustine.

    And then he stalled, stymied and stonewalled. Prototypes were destroyed by lightning, floods and plane crashes, he said. They were too unstable for independent tests. Just a little more money, he said, and it would be ready. Just a little bit more.

    Every time, he wore out his partners -- rich partners like Blockbuster and Intel, prominent partners like former U.S. Sen. Paula Hawkins and the son of Atlanta media czar Ted Turner, partners who brought him to Silicon Valley and partners who brought him to Capitol Hill.

    MULTIMEDIA

    'Magic Box' comparison test
    Pyramid of Players
    Sometimes they sued him, sometimes they threatened him and sometimes they just threw up their arms in disgust, but they walked away and left their money with him. Priest -- who declined repeated interview requests -- never needed to mourn the loss of old partners; he just found new ones. He has had many since 1994, and they have paid him at least $6 million.

    They could never quite prove that his stories -- not his magic box -- were the inventions.

    -----------

    Madison Priest shows a patent certificate issued by the U.S. government for his magic box technology. Priest said the box could transmit data much faster than any existing system, and could do it through an ordinary household telephone line.
    -- Special

    ------

    If it is a scam, they concede, it is truly a beautiful one.

    The Revelation

    A fortune can become a failure with a single phone call, which four Jacksonville-area entrepreneurs learned as their deal with Priest unraveled in 1998.

    The four, including Teddy Turner, formed a company called Zekko in 1997, and soon its only business plan was to turn Priest's invention into a product.

    None of them really liked Priest, but none of them cared. He was their Bill Gates, and his invention was their Microsoft.

    It was almost a sure thing.

    Priest was ferociously protective of its secrets, though, and by mid-1998 he was missing deadlines to turn over working prototypes.

    But the investors wanted so badly to believe, and they moved on their faith and on their greed. By September 1998, Zekko had raised almost $6 million, with as much as $1 million going directly to Priest and his wife, Linda. Another $36 million was on its way.

    And then the phone call came, a pinpoint moment where hope and trust became betrayal and panic.

    The day after a critical fund-raising trip to woo major telecommunications firms in Chicago, court records show Linda Priest called one of Zekko's founding fathers.

    -

    Linda Priest solders components to a circuit inside the Priests' Palatka workshop. In September 1998, Linda Priest told investors that her husband's magic box was a hoax.
    -- Special

    -------

    It was all a hoax, she said. There was no invention. There was only The Revelation.

    Selling the Holy Grail

    Today the Priests live in a 6,000-square-foot waterfront home, where five motorcycles, two trucks, a Jaguar, a Lincoln Town Car and a Mitsubishi Eclipse are all registered in their names, as are two small propeller airplanes.

    But in 1994, they were living in a far more modest home, a mile or two from sleepy downtown Palatka.

    Priest, a 40-something ex-con who dropped out of high school in rural Citra, had devised his invention just a year or so earlier. He had neither the connections nor the savvy to get rich off his magic box.

    Hooking up with a former U.S. senator changed that. Paula Hawkins, a one-term Republican from the Reagan era, never invested any money with Priest. But she and her husband, Gene, had a golden Rolodex, and Priest gave them a 10 percent stake in his invention to mine it.

    About this series
    The Times-Union's coverage of Madison Priest and his "magic box" is the result of a five-month investigation by reporter Matthew I. Pinzur and editor Marilyn Young.

    Roughly four dozen interviews were conducted with partners, investors, engineers and others familiar with Priest's dealings. Hundreds of pages of public records and other documents were inspected, including seven lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in Florida, California and Colorado.

    Neither Priest nor his wife, Linda, agreed to be interviewed, despite repeated verbal and written requests.

    About the photos

    Most of the photographs in this series were provided by Mark Strong, a former business partner of Madison Priest. Many are still frames taken from videos shot by Strong at meetings, tests and demonstrations spanning from 1996 through 2001.

    Meetings the Hawkinses arranged with politicians such as Sen. Orrin Hatch were encouraging, but nothing compared to to the response from top executives at Blockbuster.

    Blockbuster wanted Priest's invention badly, Gene Hawkins said, as if the entertainment giant's survival depended on it. And, in fact, it might have. Video stores could crumble if people could watch movies over their phone lines, and Priest promised exactly that ability.

    Phone lines have long been considered far too slow to carry the huge amounts of data necessary for high-quality video. Those limits created the need for cable modems and other high-performance data lines, like the T-1 and T-3 lines running in many businesses. Priest's invention would make those old phone lines faster than anything on the market, decimating the communications speed limit.

    "That was the enormous breakthrough," Gene Hawkins said. "It was just conventional, regular, plain old telephone lines."

    Gene Hawkins said he worked steadily on the project for months. He led Priest to Wayne Huizenga, then the chairman and CEO of Blockbuster. He also connected Priest with US West CEO Richard McCormick and other six-figure investors.

    Court records indicate the Priests netted at least $2.25 million in those early deals, primarily from Blockbuster. Blockbuster and US West declined to comment.

    In what would become an unwavering pattern, Priest took the investment cash without turning over working prototypes. By the end of 1996, Blockbuster and US West appear to have walked away.

    "The bigger the fish you go after, the less likely they are to come after you," said Bob Mons, an investment banker and one of Zekko's founding partners in Ponte Vedra Beach. "They don't want to admit to being taken by a flimflam man from Palatka."

    By that time, Gene Hawkins said, he and his wife had discovered Priest's criminal record, including numerous arrests and at least one conviction for grand theft. The arrests were years earlier, but were enough for the Hawkinses to stop working with him.

    "That was very hurtful and disappointing, so we turned very, very sour, my wife in particular," Hawkins said.

    The Priests' history is vague, clouded by years of varying stories the Priests told their business partners.

    Priest, now 46, sometimes spoke of being a graduate of the Air Force Academy, lawsuits and interviews show. There are no records of his attendance there, which he explained by telling people he was assigned to super-secret covert operations. Sometimes he told potential investors he had worked on a classified missile and weapons design team for aerospace defense contractor Martin Marietta, according to a lawsuit filed by Zekko. But according to that lawsuit, he was never more than a low-level assembly line worker, and was fired for stealing equipment.

    "Depending on the audience, the story would take on different embellishments," said Mark Strong, a Naples investor who became the Priests' closest business partner and later their most determined opponent. "If he thought the audience was really clueless, he would really spread it on."

    Before stepping back, Gene Hawkins said he introduced Priest to K.C. Craichy, a Tampa businessman who became close with the inventor. Craichy and a friendgave Priest about $500,000 for a stake in VisionTek, the company the Priests formed to sell their invention. Craichy also agreed to serve as its CEO.

    At the same time, in mid-1996, Orange Park real estate broker Walter Williams and at least 10 other investors from Florida saw demonstrations and invested nearly $300,000. Citing confidentiality agreements from a lawsuit settlement, Williams refused to discuss the deal with the Times-Union.

    As many as 25 or 30 others may have invested at the same time, Strong said.

    "He literally sold it to anyone who walked through the door -- friends, relatives, whoever he could get money from," said a source familiar with Zekko, who requested anonymity because a confidentiality agreement bars him from discussing the matter.

    That money, like all the rest invested in VisionTek, went directly to Priest and his wife, according to many of their former partners.

    Potential investors were dumbfounded by the demonstrations, which seemed generations beyond state of the art. With a conventional modem, one computer can transmit a music video -- with a small, fuzzy picture -- in an hour or more. At Priest's demonstrations, though, investors saw that same computer send video instantly. The Eagles' performance of Tequila Sunrise showed up on the second computer in digitally perfect full-screen glory, the music as clear as a compact disc.

    Even with top-grade fiber optic cables, that kind of quality was rare at the time. Amazingly, the computers at Priest's demonstrations appeared to be connected with ordinary telephone cord. The only other wires were the electric cords that plugged the computers into a power strip.

    The results were so staggering that investors said they overlooked Priest's demand -- his paranoia, even -- that no one so much as touch a keyboard.

    "He had a Holy Grail that was the telecommunications equivalent of cold fusion," Mons said.

    Craichy had seen Priest's elaborate show for about a year, always at places carefully prepped by Priest with computers provided by Priest and videos selected by Priest. Now Craichy wanted independent tests in which he controlled those variables.

    As soon as he suggested it, Craichy said, Priest vanished.

    "He wouldn't take my calls, he wouldn't come see me," Craichy said. "He disappeared."

    Tomorrow: As Priest's deals begin to unravel, his claims become even more daring.

    Deception revealed

    The day after Linda Priest's 1998 confession to Zekko technology chief Herb Presley, he and Mons drove to Palatka to investigate.

    It was Sept. 11, 1998, and it was the beginning of The Revelation.

    Mons, who had been the primary fund-raiser for the nearly $6 million Zekko collected that year, said he planned to confiscate whatever prototypes he and Presley could find. Linda Priest's phone call notwithstanding, he still believed they would find some components, which could be given to engineers and possibly still turned into a product.

    But any hope of keeping Zekko alive dissolved in the next few hours, according to interviews and court records.

    -------

    Linda Priest stands next to testing equipment during an examination of Madison Priest's magic box at Intertek Testing Services in Orlando. Though some tests of the box appeared successful, investors now suspect the technology does not exist and the box was a hoax.
    -- Special

    ---------

    A computer at the Priests' home, which Strong said Linda Priest believed was a key part of her husband's network for that demonstration, turned out not to be a computer at all. Inside the steel computer case, Mons said, there were no circuit boards, no disk drives, no power source.

    There was only a VCR.

    The Revelation continued when Linda Priest took them to Kay Larkin Airport, a municipal airstrip in Palatka, where her husband rented a hangar for his planes. They found no prototypes, nothing that could have salvaged Zekko's investment. What they did find was plenty of evidence to suggest a massive fraud.

    There were boxes of unused components. There were circuit boards configured with what the Zekko source called "obvious sneaks." And there was the power strip.

    Hidden inside two power cords that plugged into the strip was a single piece of coaxial cable, which could secretly connect two computers. Sending video over coaxial cable is old technology, the basis of cable television. By hiding that cable in a power strip, Priest could make it appear that the video was traveling over phone lines.

    "We found stuff that really scared the hell out of us," Mons said.

    Arrogance, anxiety

    As Priest's relationships with Craichy and the Hawkinses were crumbling around 1996, he found a new source of money and influence.

    Strong had just sold a successful chain of medical imaging companies and was itching for a new business venture. He saw a demonstration in Tampa and was hooked.

    "I thought I would be the guy that finally got this technology developed," Strong said. "That was my supreme arrogance."

    He consulted Geoff Workman, a San Francisco merchant banker experienced with high-tech innovations, who advised him to move slowly.

    "We've got an uneducated country bumpkin with a weird background in aerospace, who invented this in his workshop," Workman said. "I told Mark, 'This is going to require a lot of due diligence and vetting before we know if anything's even there.'"

    Priest, though, was masterful at urging people to invest quickly, Strong said.

    "If you didn't jump on this, some big company would get on it and you'd be aced out," Strong said.

    Strong invested $100,000, and six months later he was ready to buy Priest's entire company. He had negotiated test-site agreements with three institutions, including the University of Florida and Columbia Hospital Corp. As soon as he had 40 working units for those clients, Strong said, he would sign the deal.

    He never received them.

    Strong's concern blossomed into heavy anxiety in April 1997, when Priest was nearly killed in a car wreck in his bright red Corvette.

    "They said there was a chance he could die," Strong said. "If he died, the project was over."

    During Priest's convalescence, Strong realized the risk of keeping the invention's secrets locked in its inventor's brain. He shifted his pressure on Priest from building the 40 units to documenting the technology.

    Priest had always refused to draw complete schematics. Engineers who examined his diagrams were baffled when they showed components working beyond their capacity or being used in ways never intended. But like every story Priest told, there was always a nugget of truth, however obscure. The designs were implausible, the engineers said, but never quite impossible.

    "His ideas are interesting and provocative, so he's got a good story," said Hal Puthoff, a Texas physicist considered an expert in the concepts Priest said he was using. "It might not be a true story, but it hangs together, at least in his own jargon."

    After the wreck, Priest promised to explain everything in writing, calling Strong five or 10 times a day to update him.

    "It was just all talk," Strong said. "He never filled in all the blanks."

    While Strong waited, Priest began building the foundation for his next set of partners.

    Presley and another high-tech industry entrepreneur, Michael Newman, were planning to invest $2 million in the project just after Priest's wreck. Within six months, Presley and Newman had joined Mons and Teddy Turner to form Zekko, and Strong had been almost completely cut out.

    The deal with Zekko, detailed in an October 1997 letter, handed the Priests a lump payment of $500,000 and the potential to earn millions more.

    The deal itself would not be signed for more than six months because the Priests, Linda especially, would call for endless revisions. Zekko officers now believe they were simply stalling for time.

    "She was a first-time girl trying to be a lawyer," Mons said of Linda Priest, who did not respond to interview requests. "She was unbearably difficult to negotiate with."

    But in late 1997, everything still looked stable. Presley and Newman found experts to examine the invention while Mons and Turner sought investors to fund it.

    Priest, though, became their biggest obstacle on both fronts, Zekko officials said. Potential investors, most worth at least $1 million, were put off by his rural Florida twang, his T-shirts that said "rocket scientist," and breath so bad it could choke a man in close conversation.

    Scientists and engineers were also frustrated in conversations with him: The self-taught inventor spoke a different scientific language than the Ph.D.s. They would praise the invention's potential, but refused to vouch for it until they could take the box apart and test it themselves.

    None of it deterred Zekko. Priest claimed to be using theories called low-energy or zero-point physics, an obscure new scientific terrain.

    "This is like the netherworld of physics," Mons said. "You cannot get anyone to come in and vet this and give it absolute verification."

    While Presley struggled to arrange conclusive tests, Mons and Turner began raising more than $1.5 million from individual investors in late 1997. That Turner was attached to the project only made investors more confident.

    "Obviously that was a good name, and there was some talk that CNN would be an end user," said Dave Wild, a South Florida investor who put $63,000 into the project.

    Indeed, Turner arranged a demonstration for his father at CNN's Atlanta headquarters, according to Mons. Ted Turner did not return phone calls, and his son declined to discuss the matter, but Mons said CNN wanted to be the company's first client. Ted Turner provided Priest workspace at the CNN building, Mons said, and asked him to build a prototype. It never happened.

    Looking back, Zekko's founders and investors see how Priest's endless stalling and laughable excuses should have made them more cautious.

    At least 10 times, according to court records, Priest said working prototypes were hit by lightning. Other times he would claim they were damaged in floods, damaged in rains or otherwise became "unstable."

    No one could force Priest to work faster or deliver the independent tests.

    "Every time we told him to put up," Mons said, "he threatened to blow up and go away."

    A half-mile lie

    Even the phony computers and trick power strips did not prepare the Zekko bosses for the next day, when The Revelation continued and grew as they revisited buildings where Priest had hosted demonstrations.

    At one site after another, Mons said, they found hidden lines of coaxial cable. In some places it was buried shallowly in the dirt. In others it was snaked along bushes.

    The most dumbfounding was at the Fort Gates Ferry, a ramshackle barge that crosses the St. Johns River near Welaka. Priest would often demonstrate the invention there, transmitting video from a computer on one side of the river to a partner on the other side. It seemed, the Zekko executives thought, an impossible test to fake.

    Then they saw more than a half-mile of coaxial cable coiled on the dock.

    "Madison had actually run co-ax under the St. Johns River there," Mons said.

    The ferryman at Fort Gates, Dale Jones, confirmed to the Times-Union that Priest had paid him to string the cable, but refused to discuss the matter.

    The river is about a half-mile wide at the ferry, long enough that the cable would need special devices to amplify the signal. The Zekko source said the company had provided Priest with just such devices.

    Rush to settlement

    By the time Zekko's partners were getting queasy about Madison Priest, they were in too deep to retreat. In addition to more than $1.5 million Mons raised in late 1997, court records show prominent California computer chip maker Level One invested $3.5 million from October 1997 to January 1998.

    The cash was flowing out of Zekko even faster than it was coming in. The contract with Priest had already paid him $500,000, and both Mons and another Zekko source said the inventor eventually got as much as $1 million of Zekko funds. In addition, the inventor's previous partners, including Craichy, Strong and the Hawkinses, began laying claim to the technology's rights. "We needed a clear title to this technology," Mons said, "and we were in a hurry."

    So Zekko settled with everyone, according to company documents, paying out more than $1 million. Strong, who had signed non-circumvention agreements with Zekko bosses, received the juiciest deal: $525,000 cash, a $15,000 monthly consulting agreement and possible royalties. Craichy received $30,000 to $50,000, and the Hawkinses -- who invested only time, never money -- settled for a consulting agreement that was supposed to pay out $360,000. However, Gene Hawkins said they never received more than about $20,000.

    "All those consultants; maybe only one worked for the company," the Zekko source said. "The rest were getting paid to settle."

    No one from Level One, which has since been purchased by Intel, would comment on their investment in Zekko. Priest repeatedly postponed delivery of working prototypes during 1998, and by September, Zekko's officers could not imagine why Priest continued to miss delivery deadlines and stall on conclusive testing. Before flying with Priest to meet with eager investors from Ameritech and GTE in Chicago, one of Zekko's executives confronted Linda Priest, the Zekko source said.

    If this was a hoax, she was warned, Zekko would pursue them like Captain Ahab followed his whale. Major corporations like Blockbuster might have been willing to write off their losses to avoid the negative publicity associated with lawsuits, but Zekko had no such compunctions.

    Because Linda Priest had become the court-appointed liquidator for VisionTek, the Zekko executive assured her she would be easier to convict than her husband and serve more jail time. If she had anything to confess, he told her, now was the time.

    She said nothing, and the trip to Chicago went on as planned, with Priest joined by Presley and another Zekko board member. The companies offered to write a check for more than $36 million on the spot. The Zekko executives held off, though. Both company sources and David Hodges, a Jacksonville private investigator hired by Strong, said Zekko wanted to be completely secure in the technology before putting major telecommunications companies on the hook for that much cash. Had the top executives accepted the check, some would have received bonuses as high as $875,000.

    "The day before, you thought you were a billionaire," the Zekko source said. "Then you've got serious questions."

    Profiting from belief

    Ironically, it was fallout from Priest's Chicago demonstrations that destroyed Zekko.

    Linda Priest's version of those events, according to Mons and other sources, went like this:

    She believed her husband usually demonstrated the technology by connecting to a modem in their home computer, so she expected him to call from Chicago and tell her to turn it on. Unbeknownst to her, he was using the computer in his shop, which was already on. When he failed to call that day, she grew suspicious and opened the home computer. Inside the case she found nothing but a VCR.

    When Priest returned to Palatka the next day, his wife was gone. She had emptied their house and filed separation papers in court. She initiated The Revelation when she called Presley, Zekko's technology chief, and told her story. She also called the FBI.

    "She was in this up to her eyeballs," Mons said. "Now she was trying to extricate herself."

    The accusations sent Zekko into a tailspin. The company's officers spent the next few days discovering staggering evidence of a massive scam. Many resigned in disgust, their investors' stock apparently worthless. Zekko stopped paying Priest and everyone else.

    "This is a very well-orchestrated con, and there are a lot of people involved," Mons said.

    It might have all ended here, with Priest dismissed as a scheming nerd who knew nothing special after all.

    But Madison Priest knew one thing had not changed. People -- even smart, rich and powerful people -- want to believe in a magic box.

    Within three months, Linda Priest would recant her accusations and reconcile with her husband. They would enigmatically explain the damning evidence as fallout from amnesia related to Priest's car accident -- amnesia they never mentioned at the time. They would accuse Zekko of breaking its contract, voiding the company's claim to the invention.

    They wrapped the same old box with a ribbon of fresh, new stories. This time, the plan -- and the stakes -- would be even grander.

    Times-Union library director Jennifer O'Neill and staff writer Marilyn Young contributed to this report.

    Staff writer Matthew I. Pinzur can be reached at (904) 359-4025 or via e-mail at mpinzur@jacksonville.com.

    -------

    Search Tips - Use + to require word, - to omit.
    Enter words describing a concept or keywords.

    -------
    Story Archives

    News | Marketplace | Learning Center | Entertainment
    Jack's Cafe | Community | Home

    Metro | Neighbors | Opinion | Obituaries | Business
    Daily Special | Sports | Weather | Voices | Wire

    About us | E-mail staff | How to advertise

    This site, and all its content, © The Florida Times-Union

  95. So what, we're lied to every day by gotan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's those computercompanies who tell us their "magic boxes" will make our lifes better, or their software. TV-broadcasters ensuring us we couldn't live without watching their Channels every day (makes one wonder what humankind did before the invention of TV), car companies convincing us that we need a car that can drive 150 MPH although there's only very few chances to do so, ...

    Also there's all these "get rich quick" schemes and whatnot, but what they all have in common: there needs to be someone gullible enough to believe all those smooth lies and greedy enough to act before thinking for the scheme to work. How's this one different from any big corporation selling their product with even bigger lies? Just because it's a single guy instead of a whole corporation thats selling hot air on lies?

    If that guy get's sued i'd like to sue all that corporations who told me i could get the hottest women in town just because i wear the right sneakers, drink the correct beverage or drive the right car. Then i have some serious issues with any companies selling XXX-light products because i didn't loose a single pound despite eating tons of the stuff. And then i want a free passage to my plot on the moon.

    Where exactly is the difference between a scam and "good advertising"?

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  96. Some other charlatans in this space: etreppid.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Check out www.etreppid.com to see a company making similar claims with software (basically, the old "unlimited yet perfect compression" scam). The company is ran by Warren Trepp, famous for being the number 2 man in Milken's famous junk bond scam.

  97. How come I can't find any reference to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Madison Priest on the Web or Usenet??? Is the story about a hoax, a hoax?

  98. MOD UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost nobody gets this stuff right.

  99. Bitter? by hasse · · Score: 0, Troll

    if you didn't understand that the 'get fit before summer' scheme was a scam before now, no need to bitch us about it.

  100. Well... by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    When the phone system was invented, there was no 'theoretical' limit to the quality, since it was all annolog (I mean, not counting the physical limitations of the wire, which is pretty high)

    Once you start digitizing (at that rate) everything you're going to loose a lot of information.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  101. That proof... by ThousandStars · · Score: 1

    No offense, but anybody who believes a charlatan like the one offering a mystery box deserves to have their money taken. Nobody should be stupid enough to believe in any miracle product without being able to check out it's guts.

    1. Re:That proof... by ncohafmuta · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the millions that buy stuff off TV infomercials :-)

    2. Re:That proof... by Tower · · Score: 1

      You mean it can't scramble an egg while it is still inside it's shell, while folding up to fit under a bed, does ten times the work with no effort, and you can just set it and forget it for just 4... no THREE! easy payments of $29.95?

      I feel taken.

      --
      "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
  102. It sounds like by ahde · · Score: 4, Interesting

    you know, from the article, it sounds more like that the "investors" were more interested in keeping his invention out of production. Particularly Blockbuster and Qwest had tremendenous motivation to supress the idea, whether legitimate or not. I seriously doubt Blockbuster was interested in obsoleting their own business model. And Qwest owns of the more miles of wire than anyone in the world. Whether they knew it was a hoax or not is kind of irrelevant, since the principle investors never intended the product to be developed anyway.

  103. A lot by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    So what's the real answer? Given a telephone wire and optimum conditions, what's the theoretical maximum speed that data can be transferred at?

    It depends on the length. But when you try to run it through all the existing telephone system you are limited to 64k without any A/D conversions.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  104. It's ironic that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    It's ironic that in making his fake high bandwidth phone line, he actually solved another networking problem - how to make high bandwidth power lines. Sure his solution (running a coax in the power line) isn't a technical revolution, but it is at least as good as every other scheme for doing networking over the power grid.

    1. Re:It's ironic that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      He wasn't carry coax over a power line. The
      computers had extra power cords running to a
      powerstrip. Those outlets on the power strip
      had a piece of coax connecting them. There was
      no AC on those outlets. Thus to do video, he
      needed one extra power cord. To do a 4 wire T-1,
      he used two extra power cords, claiming the
      magic box required a lot of power. Never mind
      that the power strip still just had a 10 amp
      breaker. Ignore the man behind the curtain.

  105. I saw a demo from these guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    I don't remember the exact year, probably like 1996 or so. I was working as an engineer for xxxxx. One of our VPs asked me to go with him to Jacksonville to see a demo of a device which could transport a DS-3 over a dialup line.

    In the demo, however, they were just going to do a DS-1. I took a t-berd DS-1 test set, a Navtel protocol analyzer, and some cables, including a DS-1 loopback plug (RJ-48). We met them at some hospital in Jacksonville, present were Madison Priest and Mark Strong. Mark video taped the whole thing, which made me kind of nervous.

    They took us down to the communications room in the basement of the hospital. There were two Packard Bell computers sitting on the floor. They were both plugged into the same powerstrip. The interesting part was there was not one power cable, but three for each computer. I think two of them ran into one of the ISA slot openings, and were "expoxied" in by what looked like latex caulking. It was a real mess.

    Each computer also had an RJ-45 for the T-1, and an internal analog modem. I plugged the t-1 test set into one computer, and a loopback plug into the other. Madison then used hyperterm or procom (I forget which) to dial from one computer to the other thru the Hospital's PBX. When the modems synced up, the T1 came up. I verified I was seeing the loopback, sent some different bit patterns, and errors. When he pulled the pots line, the T1 went down (loss of signal).

    Next, they wanted to show it ran over long distances. They used one computer to dial a number in my office in xxxx which was forwarded to the number of the other computer next to us. This worked just as expected. The T-1 came right up. We let the test set run awhile to make sure the line was error free. Mark Strong made it a point to videotape him asking me if it was working. About all I could say was that "It appears to be."

    We went to a conference room nearby to talk while the test ran. Madison was pretty strange. He got, what I would term, angry several times during the meeting. I stayed out of it pretty much till at what point our VP asked me what else I needed to verify to make sure that it was capable of carry a T-1. I said I wanted to put the protocol analyzer on the circuit and make a call through xxxx. Then I wanted to send frames and measure the latency of the circuit. I said I know about how much latency I should see, given that signals travel about 100 miles per millisecond.

    Then all hell broke loose. They refused to allow that test, or any others. They claimed I was trying to steal their technology. We ended up packing up and going home.

    Over the next several months, we heard from them about doing more tests. We wanted to do a long distance video feed, but the week that was supposed to happen, weather was not good (I think it was too icy) for their general aviation plane to make it. They started calling themselves VisionTek, and they informed us, of all things, that we wouldn't see the latency we expected because this thing could transfer a signal faster than the speed of light.

    I had suspected the power cords were the actual data path, and my latency test was going to test that theory, but they never allowed it to happen. I don't think they had come up with the "faster than light" story by that time, so I believe we caught them with their pants down.

    I don't think we ever invested any money in them. I always believed it to be a hoax, but was just doing my job to investiagate it. I also knew that Madison Priest was an ex-con, and after witnessing his temper, I didn't want to become any more involved than I had to. I certainly wasn't going to challenge him or do anything that would lead him to believe that I *personally* was the reason he didn't get money from my company.

    As a matter of fact, I think I should post this anonymously if you don't mind...

    1. Re:I saw a demo from these guys... by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      You big wuss. Grow some balls next time and call them out on their hoax.

      It's because of sheepish guys like you that this thing fooled so many people.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  106. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  107. Don't Panic! by h0tblack · · Score: 1

    If you've done six impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways?

    Then again, it seems extremely probable that more people than ever are willing to throw money at unfounded concepts in the hope of reaping back even more for themselves. At the same time, people seem to be extremely unwilling to throw money at projects which have solid foundations in helping humanity, but which they will unlikely get no monetary gratification for.

    ...from this basic premise it is very simple to prove that the Galactibanks are also a product of a deranged imagination.

    (Well, reiteration of the unfortunate state of much of the world has to be wrapped in friendly quotes)

  108. Trusting anyone from Florida? by driehuis · · Score: 2

    Why is it that Florida seems to attract so many kooks? I mean, sure, nice weather and plenty of old ladies flush with cash, but there must be something in the water to make Florida the scam capital of the world, as well as the spam capital.

    Neither the wx nor the abundance of local victims fully explain it.

    --

    Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.

    1. Re:Trusting anyone from Florida? by chuckfee · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's america's wang. Must have big balls too.

      --chuck

    2. Re:Trusting anyone from Florida? by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Why is it that Florida seems to attract so many kooks? I mean, sure, nice weather and plenty of old ladies flush with cash, but there must be something in the water to make Florida the scam capital of the world, as well as the spam capital.

      It's the spam capital because it's the fraud capital.

      It's the fraud capital because of liberal bankruptcy laws. You go belly-up, creditors can't really seize anything.

      By removing the risk (consequences) of bad business decisions, Florida encourages scams/frauds.

      "Doesn't matter if you go into debt to the tune of $10000 on your credit card to play the latest MLM, the creditors'll eat the loss, but hey, that's their problem.

      Doesn't matter if Grandma goes $10000 into debt playing your MLM scam, she doesn't lose her house either. Of course, she eats dog food, but hey, that's her problem."

      I believe the preceding two sentences adequately summarize the state of "bidnizz ethiks" in Florida.

    3. Re:Trusting anyone from Florida? by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      In addition, it is cheap living compared to a lot of other areas.

      If you go without Air Conditioning, your electric is pretty cheap. Half the state can probably go without heat all year. Cost of living outside of tourist areas is pretty low.

      So now you can live cheap while setting up your big scam.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
  109. I was involved in a similar scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I started work at a private company that publishes very popular audio software for the entertainment industry in the late 90's. My first task was to incorporate a new super high digital compression audio codec the company had just licensed.

    Upper level management was very impressed with the algorithm because it was an "analog" audio compression algorithm, and everyone in the music industry knows that analog sounds better than digital :-) The fact that this "analog" algorithm would have to be implemented in a computer never seemed to cross anyone's mind. And according to the scam artist, the secret was that he would take the output on the digital side, and run it through "winzip", not just once like the other guys, but multiple times! You can't imagine how in the world I kept from laughing as the V.P. of Technology of this company told me this on my first day of work.

    The story is pretty much the same-- the guy never produced a working prototype, either analog or digital. He even sent me a visual basic program which of course never actually ran.

    I wasn't there to meet the guy in person, but the demo that was described to me was incredibly easy to fake. He basically had a black box, and plugged the audio source into one side, and the output from the other side into an amp. Incredibly, the output sounded just as good as the input!!!

    Unfortunately the story has a sad ending (for me at least) because in order to explain why I couldn't get the algorithm to work, I hinted that perhaps just maybe the guy was running a scam. (As if the lack of working prototype wouldn't explain it.) The president of the company actually yelled at me over the phone "do you think I'm an idiot!", "do you think I'd let myself by taken by a con artist", etc, etc. Needless to say I was fired a few months later...

  110. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by cthugha · · Score: 2

    True, but Harrison's clocks could be verified through simple black-box testing. If the clock kept time over the course of a sea voyage (as determined through astronomical observations, using the clock's time to determine position already known through other means, or just looking at another clock) then it was genuine. If it didn't, it wasn't. Such black-box testing wouldn't have been sufficient in this case, though.

  111. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by madenosine · · Score: 1

    Also, beware of people who claim over ten times that a working prototype has been struck by lightning

  112. Re:Other scams( are you that clueless?) by betavolt · · Score: 1

    Try reading just a bit to inform yourself about the technology first. Betavoltaic technology was first developed by NASA. NASA file about betavoltaic technology Most recently it has been advanced by Sandia National Laboratories. Read DARPA-betavoltaic Learn your subject. Then you wont seem quite so ignorant. Betavoltaic will start to replace chemical batteries in the next few years.

  113. Cynic vs. Skeptic by alpha264 · · Score: 1

    In my opinion, it's always good to be a skeptic. It's rarely good (At least IMHO) to be a cynic.

    Of course, being a skeptic might be what he was talking about

  114. What if this is just a big cover up!! by g_bit · · Score: 1

    What this WHOLE STORY is just a curtain to hide the fact that somebody DID invent this thing!

    Do you think that's possible?

    1. Re:What if this is just a big cover up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's possible a giant pink cupcake that hides in the asteroid belt controls human clone puppets to act exactly like overweight scammers.

      Now, all I have to do is prove it...

  115. i remember seeing a Priest demonstration at UF by freejamesbrown · · Score: 1

    we didn't even get to see a demo...some suit with a black belt in marketing tried to pitch application sharing instead of actually showing us the technology working. it was funny. our professor dr. nemo (http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~nemo/) completely wrecked on it because let's face it. ..what modulation is gonna overcome the 3k filters that were on most phone lines at the time? holy vaporware. this is completely hilarious to read about this a few years later. m. http://www.pataphysics-lab.com

  116. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by Bush+Pig · · Score: 0

    Additionally, this pre-dated patent law, I think. It would've been possible (in principle) to reverse-engineer it and steal Harrison's ideas, although it's unlikely that the Astronomer-Royal of the day (Maskeyne?) would have been bright enough. (In fact, this is pretty much how some of the copies demanded by the Longitude Board were produced.)

    --
    What a long, strange trip it's been.
  117. Worthless patents? by Chazmati · · Score: 2

    Actually, patents are anything but worthless. Patents (even if they're not completely accurate) can bring down huge right-to-practice issues on all sorts of companies. And even if you are granted a patent, your competitors can patent improvements around your patent and box you in.

    It's kind of sad that patents have evolved into legal bargaining points. But that's how the game is played.

    BTW, IANAL...

  118. A fool and his money... by Kasreyn · · Score: 2

    ...I feel no pity for the greedy fools who got taken by Priest. As this Craichy character mentioned, all they had to do was request independent testing and he'd have been found out for a sham. It was their own stupidity to fork over millions without requesting such testing or even doing background checks on the "inventor".

    Anyone remember the saying, "if it seems too good to be true... IT IS"?

    -Kasreyn

    --
    Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger /. flamers since 1999.
  119. Bandwidth of POTS lines... by steppin_razor_LA · · Score: 1

    It has been years, but when I was a college student, we were working on a research project for PacBell on how to transmit more data over twisted pair transmission lines. My recollection is that getting data pushed through telco lines is complicated because of "loading" (I think it has something to do with inductors -- can't remember anymore) -- a technique that they used to extend the range of voice signals. Basically, once you got too far past 4khz, the signal would start to get seriously attentuated. In order to install ISDN lines, they had to actually send people out to remove the loading. I've never maintained enough interest in electrical/systems engineering to understand how DSL works, but I guess they must have figured something out.. So the point of all of this ramble, is pushing signal through POTS lines isn't the same as pushing signal over a pair of twisted pair lines in your house...

    --
    Evolution: love it or leave it
    1. Re:Bandwidth of POTS lines... by Darby · · Score: 1

      --The plural of spouse is spice

      So if you have more than one spouse your life will have added spice? Damn, I have got to try that one out on my girlfriend.

  120. Re:Other scams( are you that clueless?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    See also: UFO Technology Hackers Manual,Second Edition by Michael McDonnough, CEO of Betavoltaic

    Michael McDonnough has demonstrated once again that we do indeed have the technological advancement to go into space with field dependent drive systems that are clean, efficient, and fast. By fast where talking about 29,900kps. with up to 1,440,000lbs. of thrust available using power systems and superconductors that exist right now.

    All we have to do is exploit the systems described in his book and in the disclosed patents to be on par with other advanced space fairing worlds. The fact is you will not look at spacecraft development in the same way after reading his book. He leaves little doubt that our government has, and is developing these types of systems in secret, up till know at least.

    After reading this book you may be wondering how we could have been so deceived so completely for so many years. After reading the patents and the authors investigative reasoning you will know more about how human engineered UFO's might operate than you may have ever expected possible without very high level security clearance.

    You may, or may not believe in outer space alien craft but at least after reading this book you will understand the technology and the probable reasoning behind the cover-up of mankind's venture into the technical area of Field Drive Spacecraft Systems.

  121. Breakthroughs happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    To develop the most efficient betavoltaic technology possible for producing energy from beta-electrons we will be building our devices from the quantum level on up. By building up devices from this quantum level we can produce efficiencies in conversion that are not possible to obtain otherwise. By linking our stimulated-accelerated isotope decay technology to an energy conversion matrix built on the quantum level we will achieve device efficiencies never before realized.

    And, if you don't believe them ask Alex Ignatiev who is on the Technical Team.

  122. Same scam in Sweden by jantangring · · Score: 1

    We had the exact same scam running around in Sweden at the same years. Same box, same claims, same demo. Different people though. And since this is a small country you have to scale down all the dollar amounts passing hands a magnitude or two.

    There must be a connection, but I don't know who franshised who on the idea.

    I got a little involved in the swedish mirror case since the university I worked on was one of the victims of the scam.

    It's funny to see how not only the scam is the same, but also the reactions. You have the pointy haired bosses who are the main target for the deception, you have the golden rolodexes who get the deceptors into contact with more money. And you have the techies who say "sounds nice but the demo is not proof".

    I am curious to if there are more occurrences of this magic box scam? I would like for anyone who knows of this to contact me, If you don't publish on Slashdot.

    To my knowledge the men behind the swedish mirror case never made it to court. The story abruptly ended when the telecom company Ericsson bought it all up and put a lid on everything, bringing it out of the media range.

    1999 one of the guys appeared again in a similar scam, this time the technology was updated to wireless broadband. An LMDS lookalike this time. The magic box is DSL lookalike.

  123. Presentation by kris3dhx · · Score: 1

    Damn, I wonder if he used the 'Magic Box Comparison Test' flash piece in his presentation. As soon as I saw that, I wanted one!

    I love seeing the investors jump on any sort of technology matter, no matter if they know nothing about the field/company.

  124. No Matter How Much He Made... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Bubba's *still* from Citra. That's punishment enough, and reason enough to try any scam that'll get you out of there!

    BTW, I lived a long time in Marion County (farther back in the boonies than Citra), so I *do* have a right to make wisecracks about it. And the ferry at the St. John's River is really cool, even if this yahoo abused it in putting over his scam---and even if it's so drought-stricken the river runs backwards half the time.

    Great Ghu, there really *is* one born every minute!

    He's a-pickin',
    and I'm a-grinnin'

    Thumper

  125. A better job for this guy would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...technology consultant to hollywood studios.

    Am I right or am I right? Give it up for my post - Mod me up!

  126. I never get below 52K by DABANSHEE · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Mind you I'm in Oz

    Actually I remember reading somewhere that Oz phone lines can Potentially do up to 64K, that maybe why I've even manage to do 56K sometimes

    1. Re:I never get below 52K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. With IDSL or ISDN.

      But not with 56k.

  127. article text by bcaulf · · Score: 1

    Is it a 'magic box' or a high-tech hoax?
    Northeast Florida man attracted millions from investors who now say they were scammed

    By Matthew I. Pinzur
    Times-Union staff writer

    Madison Priest's history is filled with people who call him a con artist, a geek who invented nothing more than a beautiful lie.

    None of them, though, can prove it.

    He appeared with his magic box, promising it could convert plain copper phone lines that run to almost every home in the country into greased-lightning pipelines for data and video, four times faster than the most advanced fiber-optic cables. It was a magic box that would shock communications like the television had, transform technology like personal computers had, redefine entertainment like Nintendo had. It was a magic box he built from $100 worth of spare parts.

    He choreographed elaborate demonstrations, quickening the pulses of engineers shocked by its innovation and capitalists stunned by its potential.

    He asked for money and received it, sometimes more than a million dollars at a time, enough to move him from a cobblestone street in Palatka to a gated community in St. Augustine.

    And then he stalled, stymied and stonewalled. Prototypes were destroyed by lightning, floods and plane crashes, he said. They were too unstable for independent tests. Just a little more money, he said, and it would be ready. Just a little bit more.

    Every time, he wore out his partners -- rich partners like Blockbuster and Intel, prominent partners like former U.S. Sen. Paula Hawkins and the son of Atlanta media czar Ted Turner, partners who brought him to Silicon Valley and partners who brought him to Capitol Hill.

    MULTIMEDIA

    'Magic Box' comparison test
    Pyramid of Players
    Sometimes they sued him, sometimes they threatened him and sometimes they just threw up their arms in disgust, but they walked away and left their money with him. Priest -- who declined repeated interview requests -- never needed to mourn the loss of old partners; he just found new ones. He has had many since 1994, and they have paid him at least $6 million.

    They could never quite prove that his stories -- not his magic box -- were the inventions.

    Madison Priest shows a patent certificate issued by the U.S. government for his magic box technology. Priest said the box could transmit data much faster than any existing system, and could do it through an ordinary household telephone line.
    -- Special

    If it is a scam, they concede, it is truly a beautiful one.

    The Revelation

    A fortune can become a failure with a single phone call, which four Jacksonville-area entrepreneurs learned as their deal with Priest unraveled in 1998.

    The four, including Teddy Turner, formed a company called Zekko in 1997, and soon its only business plan was to turn Priest's invention into a product.

    None of them really liked Priest, but none of them cared. He was their Bill Gates, and his invention was their Microsoft.

    It was almost a sure thing.

    Priest was ferociously protective of its secrets, though, and by mid-1998 he was missing deadlines to turn over working prototypes.

    But the investors wanted so badly to believe, and they moved on their faith and on their greed. By September 1998, Zekko had raised almost $6 million, with as much as $1 million going directly to Priest and his wife, Linda. Another $36 million was on its way.

    And then the phone call came, a pinpoint moment where hope and trust became betrayal and panic.

    The day after a critical fund-raising trip to woo major telecommunications firms in Chicago, court records show Linda Priest called one of Zekko's founding fathers.

    Linda Priest solders components to a circuit inside the Priests' Palatka workshop. In September 1998, Linda Priest told investors that her husband's magic box was a hoax.
    -- Special

    It was all a hoax, she said. There was no invention. There was only The Revelation.

    Selling the Holy Grail

    Today the Priests live in a 6,000-square-foot waterfront home, where five motorcycles, two trucks, a Jaguar, a Lincoln Town Car and a Mitsubishi Eclipse are all registered in their names, as are two small propeller airplanes.

    But in 1994, they were living in a far more modest home, a mile or two from sleepy downtown Palatka.

    Priest, a 40-something ex-con who dropped out of high school in rural Citra, had devised his invention just a year or so earlier. He had neither the connections nor the savvy to get rich off his magic box.

    Hooking up with a former U.S. senator changed that. Paula Hawkins, a one-term Republican from the Reagan era, never invested any money with Priest. But she and her husband, Gene, had a golden Rolodex, and Priest gave them a 10 percent stake in his invention to mine it.

    About this series
    The Times-Union's coverage of Madison Priest and his "magic box" is the result of a five-month investigation by reporter Matthew I. Pinzur and editor Marilyn Young.

    Roughly four dozen interviews were conducted with partners, investors, engineers and others familiar with Priest's dealings. Hundreds of pages of public records and other documents were inspected, including seven lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in Florida, California and Colorado.

    Neither Priest nor his wife, Linda, agreed to be interviewed, despite repeated verbal and written requests.

    About the photos

    Most of the photographs in this series were provided by Mark Strong, a former business partner of Madison Priest. Many are still frames taken from videos shot by Strong at meetings, tests and demonstrations spanning from 1996 through 2001.

    Meetings the Hawkinses arranged with politicians such as Sen. Orrin Hatch were encouraging, but nothing compared to to the response from top executives at Blockbuster.

    Blockbuster wanted Priest's invention badly, Gene Hawkins said, as if the entertainment giant's survival depended on it. And, in fact, it might have. Video stores could crumble if people could watch movies over their phone lines, and Priest promised exactly that ability.

    Phone lines have long been considered far too slow to carry the huge amounts of data necessary for high-quality video. Those limits created the need for cable modems and other high-performance data lines, like the T-1 and T-3 lines running in many businesses. Priest's invention would make those old phone lines faster than anything on the market, decimating the communications speed limit.

    "That was the enormous breakthrough," Gene Hawkins said. "It was just conventional, regular, plain old telephone lines."

    Gene Hawkins said he worked steadily on the project for months. He led Priest to Wayne Huizenga, then the chairman and CEO of Blockbuster. He also connected Priest with US West CEO Richard McCormick and other six-figure investors.

    Court records indicate the Priests netted at least $2.25 million in those early deals, primarily from Blockbuster. Blockbuster and US West declined to comment.

    In what would become an unwavering pattern, Priest took the investment cash without turning over working prototypes. By the end of 1996, Blockbuster and US West appear to have walked away.

    "The bigger the fish you go after, the less likely they are to come after you," said Bob Mons, an investment banker and one of Zekko's founding partners in Ponte Vedra Beach. "They don't want to admit to being taken by a flimflam man from Palatka."

    By that time, Gene Hawkins said, he and his wife had discovered Priest's criminal record, including numerous arrests and at least one conviction for grand theft. The arrests were years earlier, but were enough for the Hawkinses to stop working with him.

    "That was very hurtful and disappointing, so we turned very, very sour, my wife in particular," Hawkins said.

    The Priests' history is vague, clouded by years of varying stories the Priests told their business partners.

    Priest, now 46, sometimes spoke of being a graduate of the Air Force Academy, lawsuits and interviews show. There are no records of his attendance there, which he explained by telling people he was assigned to super-secret covert operations. Sometimes he told potential investors he had worked on a classified missile and weapons design team for aerospace defense contractor Martin Marietta, according to a lawsuit filed by Zekko. But according to that lawsuit, he was never more than a low-level assembly line worker, and was fired for stealing equipment.

    "Depending on the audience, the story would take on different embellishments," said Mark Strong, a Naples investor who became the Priests' closest business partner and later their most determined opponent. "If he thought the audience was really clueless, he would really spread it on."

    Before stepping back, Gene Hawkins said he introduced Priest to K.C. Craichy, a Tampa businessman who became close with the inventor. Craichy and a friendgave Priest about $500,000 for a stake in VisionTek, the company the Priests formed to sell their invention. Craichy also agreed to serve as its CEO.

    At the same time, in mid-1996, Orange Park real estate broker Walter Williams and at least 10 other investors from Florida saw demonstrations and invested nearly $300,000. Citing confidentiality agreements from a lawsuit settlement, Williams refused to discuss the deal with the Times-Union.

    As many as 25 or 30 others may have invested at the same time, Strong said.

    "He literally sold it to anyone who walked through the door -- friends, relatives, whoever he could get money from," said a source familiar with Zekko, who requested anonymity because a confidentiality agreement bars him from discussing the matter.

    That money, like all the rest invested in VisionTek, went directly to Priest and his wife, according to many of their former partners.

    Potential investors were dumbfounded by the demonstrations, which seemed generations beyond state of the art. With a conventional modem, one computer can transmit a music video -- with a small, fuzzy picture -- in an hour or more. At Priest's demonstrations, though, investors saw that same computer send video instantly. The Eagles' performance of Tequila Sunrise showed up on the second computer in digitally perfect full-screen glory, the music as clear as a compact disc.

    Even with top-grade fiber optic cables, that kind of quality was rare at the time. Amazingly, the computers at Priest's demonstrations appeared to be connected with ordinary telephone cord. The only other wires were the electric cords that plugged the computers into a power strip.

    The results were so staggering that investors said they overlooked Priest's demand -- his paranoia, even -- that no one so much as touch a keyboard.

    "He had a Holy Grail that was the telecommunications equivalent of cold fusion," Mons said.

    Craichy had seen Priest's elaborate show for about a year, always at places carefully prepped by Priest with computers provided by Priest and videos selected by Priest. Now Craichy wanted independent tests in which he controlled those variables.

    As soon as he suggested it, Craichy said, Priest vanished.

    "He wouldn't take my calls, he wouldn't come see me," Craichy said. "He disappeared."

    Tomorrow: As Priest's deals begin to unravel, his claims become even more daring.

    Deception revealed

    The day after Linda Priest's 1998 confession to Zekko technology chief Herb Presley, he and Mons drove to Palatka to investigate.

    It was Sept. 11, 1998, and it was the beginning of The Revelation.

    Mons, who had been the primary fund-raiser for the nearly $6 million Zekko collected that year, said he planned to confiscate whatever prototypes he and Presley could find. Linda Priest's phone call notwithstanding, he still believed they would find some components, which could be given to engineers and possibly still turned into a product.

    But any hope of keeping Zekko alive dissolved in the next few hours, according to interviews and court records.

    Linda Priest stands next to testing equipment during an examination of Madison Priest's magic box at Intertek Testing Services in Orlando. Though some tests of the box appeared successful, investors now suspect the technology does not exist and the box was a hoax.
    -- Special

    A computer at the Priests' home, which Strong said Linda Priest believed was a key part of her husband's network for that demonstration, turned out not to be a computer at all. Inside the steel computer case, Mons said, there were no circuit boards, no disk drives, no power source.

    There was only a VCR.

    The Revelation continued when Linda Priest took them to Kay Larkin Airport, a municipal airstrip in Palatka, where her husband rented a hangar for his planes. They found no prototypes, nothing that could have salvaged Zekko's investment. What they did find was plenty of evidence to suggest a massive fraud.

    There were boxes of unused components. There were circuit boards configured with what the Zekko source called "obvious sneaks." And there was the power strip.

    Hidden inside two power cords that plugged into the strip was a single piece of coaxial cable, which could secretly connect two computers. Sending video over coaxial cable is old technology, the basis of cable television. By hiding that cable in a power strip, Priest could make it appear that the video was traveling over phone lines.

    "We found stuff that really scared the hell out of us," Mons said.

    Arrogance, anxiety

    As Priest's relationships with Craichy and the Hawkinses were crumbling around 1996, he found a new source of money and influence.

    Strong had just sold a successful chain of medical imaging companies and was itching for a new business venture. He saw a demonstration in Tampa and was hooked.

    "I thought I would be the guy that finally got this technology developed," Strong said. "That was my supreme arrogance."

    He consulted Geoff Workman, a San Francisco merchant banker experienced with high-tech innovations, who advised him to move slowly.

    "We've got an uneducated country bumpkin with a weird background in aerospace, who invented this in his workshop," Workman said. "I told Mark, 'This is going to require a lot of due diligence and vetting before we know if anything's even there.'"

    Priest, though, was masterful at urging people to invest quickly, Strong said.

    "If you didn't jump on this, some big company would get on it and you'd be aced out," Strong said.

    Strong invested $100,000, and six months later he was ready to buy Priest's entire company. He had negotiated test-site agreements with three institutions, including the University of Florida and Columbia Hospital Corp. As soon as he had 40 working units for those clients, Strong said, he would sign the deal.

    He never received them.

    Strong's concern blossomed into heavy anxiety in April 1997, when Priest was nearly killed in a car wreck in his bright red Corvette.

    "They said there was a chance he could die," Strong said. "If he died, the project was over."

    During Priest's convalescence, Strong realized the risk of keeping the invention's secrets locked in its inventor's brain. He shifted his pressure on Priest from building the 40 units to documenting the technology.

    Priest had always refused to draw complete schematics. Engineers who examined his diagrams were baffled when they showed components working beyond their capacity or being used in ways never intended. But like every story Priest told, there was always a nugget of truth, however obscure. The designs were implausible, the engineers said, but never quite impossible.

    "His ideas are interesting and provocative, so he's got a good story," said Hal Puthoff, a Texas physicist considered an expert in the concepts Priest said he was using. "It might not be a true story, but it hangs together, at least in his own jargon."

    After the wreck, Priest promised to explain everything in writing, calling Strong five or 10 times a day to update him.

    "It was just all talk," Strong said. "He never filled in all the blanks."

    While Strong waited, Priest began building the foundation for his next set of partners.

    Presley and another high-tech industry entrepreneur, Michael Newman, were planning to invest $2 million in the project just after Priest's wreck. Within six months, Presley and Newman had joined Mons and Teddy Turner to form Zekko, and Strong had been almost completely cut out.

    The deal with Zekko, detailed in an October 1997 letter, handed the Priests a lump payment of $500,000 and the potential to earn millions more.

    The deal itself would not be signed for more than six months because the Priests, Linda especially, would call for endless revisions. Zekko officers now believe they were simply stalling for time.

    "She was a first-time girl trying to be a lawyer," Mons said of Linda Priest, who did not respond to interview requests. "She was unbearably difficult to negotiate with."

    But in late 1997, everything still looked stable. Presley and Newman found experts to examine the invention while Mons and Turner sought investors to fund it.

    Priest, though, became their biggest obstacle on both fronts, Zekko officials said. Potential investors, most worth at least $1 million, were put off by his rural Florida twang, his T-shirts that said "rocket scientist," and breath so bad it could choke a man in close conversation.

    Scientists and engineers were also frustrated in conversations with him: The self-taught inventor spoke a different scientific language than the Ph.D.s. They would praise the invention's potential, but refused to vouch for it until they could take the box apart and test it themselves.

    None of it deterred Zekko. Priest claimed to be using theories called low-energy or zero-point physics, an obscure new scientific terrain.

    "This is like the netherworld of physics," Mons said. "You cannot get anyone to come in and vet this and give it absolute verification."

    While Presley struggled to arrange conclusive tests, Mons and Turner began raising more than $1.5 million from individual investors in late 1997. That Turner was attached to the project only made investors more confident.

    "Obviously that was a good name, and there was some talk that CNN would be an end user," said Dave Wild, a South Florida investor who put $63,000 into the project.

    Indeed, Turner arranged a demonstration for his father at CNN's Atlanta headquarters, according to Mons. Ted Turner did not return phone calls, and his son declined to discuss the matter, but Mons said CNN wanted to be the company's first client. Ted Turner provided Priest workspace at the CNN building, Mons said, and asked him to build a prototype. It never happened.

    Looking back, Zekko's founders and investors see how Priest's endless stalling and laughable excuses should have made them more cautious.

    At least 10 times, according to court records, Priest said working prototypes were hit by lightning. Other times he would claim they were damaged in floods, damaged in rains or otherwise became "unstable."

    No one could force Priest to work faster or deliver the independent tests.

    "Every time we told him to put up," Mons said, "he threatened to blow up and go away."

    A half-mile lie

    Even the phony computers and trick power strips did not prepare the Zekko bosses for the next day, when The Revelation continued and grew as they revisited buildings where Priest had hosted demonstrations.

    At one site after another, Mons said, they found hidden lines of coaxial cable. In some places it was buried shallowly in the dirt. In others it was snaked along bushes.

    The most dumbfounding was at the Fort Gates Ferry, a ramshackle barge that crosses the St. Johns River near Welaka. Priest would often demonstrate the invention there, transmitting video from a computer on one side of the river to a partner on the other side. It seemed, the Zekko executives thought, an impossible test to fake.

    Then they saw more than a half-mile of coaxial cable coiled on the dock.

    "Madison had actually run co-ax under the St. Johns River there," Mons said.

    The ferryman at Fort Gates, Dale Jones, confirmed to the Times-Union that Priest had paid him to string the cable, but refused to discuss the matter.

    The river is about a half-mile wide at the ferry, long enough that the cable would need special devices to amplify the signal. The Zekko source said the company had provided Priest with just such devices.

    Rush to settlement

    By the time Zekko's partners were getting queasy about Madison Priest, they were in too deep to retreat. In addition to more than $1.5 million Mons raised in late 1997, court records show prominent California computer chip maker Level One invested $3.5 million from October 1997 to January 1998.

    The cash was flowing out of Zekko even faster than it was coming in. The contract with Priest had already paid him $500,000, and both Mons and another Zekko source said the inventor eventually got as much as $1 million of Zekko funds. In addition, the inventor's previous partners, including Craichy, Strong and the Hawkinses, began laying claim to the technology's rights. "We needed a clear title to this technology," Mons said, "and we were in a hurry."

    So Zekko settled with everyone, according to company documents, paying out more than $1 million. Strong, who had signed non-circumvention agreements with Zekko bosses, received the juiciest deal: $525,000 cash, a $15,000 monthly consulting agreement and possible royalties. Craichy received $30,000 to $50,000, and the Hawkinses -- who invested only time, never money -- settled for a consulting agreement that was supposed to pay out $360,000. However, Gene Hawkins said they never received more than about $20,000.

    "All those consultants; maybe only one worked for the company," the Zekko source said. "The rest were getting paid to settle."

    No one from Level One, which has since been purchased by Intel, would comment on their investment in Zekko. Priest repeatedly postponed delivery of working prototypes during 1998, and by September, Zekko's officers could not imagine why Priest continued to miss delivery deadlines and stall on conclusive testing. Before flying with Priest to meet with eager investors from Ameritech and GTE in Chicago, one of Zekko's executives confronted Linda Priest, the Zekko source said.

    If this was a hoax, she was warned, Zekko would pursue them like Captain Ahab followed his whale. Major corporations like Blockbuster might have been willing to write off their losses to avoid the negative publicity associated with lawsuits, but Zekko had no such compunctions.

    Because Linda Priest had become the court-appointed liquidator for VisionTek, the Zekko executive assured her she would be easier to convict than her husband and serve more jail time. If she had anything to confess, he told her, now was the time.

    She said nothing, and the trip to Chicago went on as planned, with Priest joined by Presley and another Zekko board member. The companies offered to write a check for more than $36 million on the spot. The Zekko executives held off, though. Both company sources and David Hodges, a Jacksonville private investigator hired by Strong, said Zekko wanted to be completely secure in the technology before putting major telecommunications companies on the hook for that much cash. Had the top executives accepted the check, some would have received bonuses as high as $875,000.

    "The day before, you thought you were a billionaire," the Zekko source said. "Then you've got serious questions."

    Profiting from belief

    Ironically, it was fallout from Priest's Chicago demonstrations that destroyed Zekko.

    Linda Priest's version of those events, according to Mons and other sources, went like this:

    She believed her husband usually demonstrated the technology by connecting to a modem in their home computer, so she expected him to call from Chicago and tell her to turn it on. Unbeknownst to her, he was using the computer in his shop, which was already on. When he failed to call that day, she grew suspicious and opened the home computer. Inside the case she found nothing but a VCR.

    When Priest returned to Palatka the next day, his wife was gone. She had emptied their house and filed separation papers in court. She initiated The Revelation when she called Presley, Zekko's technology chief, and told her story. She also called the FBI.

    "She was in this up to her eyeballs," Mons said. "Now she was trying to extricate herself."

    The accusations sent Zekko into a tailspin. The company's officers spent the next few days discovering staggering evidence of a massive scam. Many resigned in disgust, their investors' stock apparently worthless. Zekko stopped paying Priest and everyone else.

    "This is a very well-orchestrated con, and there are a lot of people involved," Mons said.

    It might have all ended here, with Priest dismissed as a scheming nerd who knew nothing special after all.

    But Madison Priest knew one thing had not changed. People -- even smart, rich and powerful people -- want to believe in a magic box.

    Within three months, Linda Priest would recant her accusations and reconcile with her husband. They would enigmatically explain the damning evidence as fallout from amnesia related to Priest's car accident -- amnesia they never mentioned at the time. They would accuse Zekko of breaking its contract, voiding the company's claim to the invention.

    They wrapped the same old box with a ribbon of fresh, new stories. This time, the plan -- and the stakes -- would be even grander.

    Times-Union library director Jennifer O'Neill and staff writer Marilyn Young contributed to this report.

    Staff writer Matthew I. Pinzur can be reached at (904) 359-4025 or via e-mail at mpinzur@jacksonville.com.

    Investors shaken by amnesia, alien
    Accused of faking his 'magic box,' Madison Priest makes new promises -- and looks for more money

    Is it a 'magic box' or a high-tech hoax?
    'Magic Box' comparison test
    Pyramid of Players

    By Matthew I. Pinzur
    Times-Union staff writer

    He blamed amnesia.

    When Madison Priest was confronted with evidence he had been faking demonstrations of his invention -- an invention that had already brought him at least $4 million -- he blamed amnesia from a Corvette wreck that happened 18 months earlier. He had never mentioned memory loss before, his investors said, but now he made it the keystone of his defense.

    Priest, who declined repeated interview requests, said he had forgotten how to build the magic box that transformed regular home telephone wires into ultra-fast video and data lines. Until he could remember, or at least reverse-engineer his working units, Zekko bosses said he said he had to fake demonstrations to keep the investment cash flowing. And he begged them not to abandon him.

    Desire and greed will give a man faith, but their faith was already worn down. They had run out of ways to convince themselves it was anything other than a hoax.

    About this series
    The Times-Union's coverage of Madison Priest and his "magic box" is the result of a five-month investigation by reporter Matthew I. Pinzur and editor Marilyn Young.

    Roughly four dozen interviews were conducted with partners, investors, engineers and others familiar with Priest's dealings. Hundreds of pages of public records and other documents were inspected, including seven lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in Florida, California and Colorado.

    Neither Priest nor his wife, Linda, agreed to be interviewed, despite repeated verbal and written requests.

    About the photos

    Most of the photographs in this series were provided by Mark Strong, a former business partner of Madison Priest. Many are still frames taken from videos shot by Strong at meetings, tests and demonstrations spanning from 1996 through 2001.

    There was a problem, though.

    Even when his tales became absurd, even when he replaced deadlines with excuses, even when his wife of 22 years condemned the whole thing as a scam, no one could prove he was lying.

    That was always the way with Madison Priest.

    Teddy Turner, son of the Atlanta mogul, was finished believing. He had founded Zekko in 1997 with three other men, eager to take their place among the instant zillionaires of dot-com glory. His name -- his father's name, really -- conferred legitimacy on the unknown company and its unknown genius, giving many investors confidence.

    Little more than a year later, after Priest's wife's catastrophic revelation, Zekko officials uncovered damning evidence suggesting a scam.

    When they confronted Priest, he spun his story of amnesia. Then he disclosed, for the first time, how he developed his invention: The idea was brought to him by an alien being he called a "hopper," which traveled from planet to planet and revealed technological advances, recalled Bob Mons, one of Zekko's founders who attended the meeting.

    "That's when we started to realize he was delusional and a total fraud," said Mons, who had raised nearly $6 million for Zekko.

    By the end of the meeting, Turner had resigned in disgust. Others would follow in the next days and weeks. With no money left and no faith in their only asset, Zekko soon abandoned the project.

    "Madison's endgame was a stalemate," said Mons, 41, a Ponte Vedra investment banker. "When it came time to put up, he just jumped on another horse."

    Zekko was added to the list of Priest's jilted partners, joining Blockbuster, US West, First Coast real estate broker Walter Williams and others. More were on the horizon.

    Priest connects computers to the magic box during one of five tests of the system conducted at Intertek Testing Services in Orlando.
    -- Special

    There were always more investors for Priest, because that magic box could be worth billions of dollars. Just as his earlier supporters had accepted stories about amnesia and aliens and dark forces hunting him for his secrets, new crops of partners would blithely embrace new tales: miraculous improvements that made the magic box wireless, prototypes that were ruined by incessant acts of God until the inventor himself destroyed the last working models, and then a strikingly similar technology he began to sell overseas.

    They believed, at least for a time.

    For a shot at getting in early on a technology like that -- to be the one who invested in Microsoft when Windows were still made of glass -- people will let themselves believe crazy stories.

    Grasping at hope

    Mark Strong had thought he was finished with Madison Priest. The two had briefly been business partners before Zekko was formed, but Strong felt betrayed by the deals between Zekko and Priest.

    Zekko had paid Strong $675,000 to go away, but he still felt cheated out of the fantastic wealth he had expected to achieve with Priest. When the deal with Zekko collapsed in the fall of 1998 and Priest again came calling, Strong saw a second chance. Strong believed Priest and his wife, Linda, had possibly tricked Zekko into believing the technology was a fraud, hoping the company would walk away.

    "I knew they were trying to get rid of Zekko," Strong said. "I knew he might give them false information, even if it was incriminating."

    Over the next three years, Strong would become Priest's most enduring partner. He would settle lawsuits against Priest, locate millions of dollars in investment cash, broker deals with Intel and General Dynamics.

    His commitment was so strong, in fact, that others who dealt with Priest over the years believe Strong must have been part of the con -- including David Hodges, the Jacksonville private eye Strong himself hired to investigate Priest.

    "I look at Strong as a hustler," Hodges said.

    Strong failed to tell at least some of his investors about Priest's criminal history or Linda Priest's accusations of fraud.

    "Maybe in retrospect I was too naive and put too much trust in Mark," said Doug Motley, Strong's friend and fishing buddy from Naples, who invested $60,000. "I really hope that if he was aware of that he would have made me aware of that."

    But Strong said he simply made the mistake of believing Priest's tales and set out to become the one person Priest could trust with his secrets. His company, Hyperlight, acquired all the rights to Priest's invention, even though Strong said he already saw Priest as a duplicitous liar.

    Testing empty boxes

    Strong's first priority was arranging independent tests of the device. He had been burned by Priest the first time they worked together, like the 1996 embarrassment with an Arizona physicist who was going to test the magic box.

    "We open them up, and they're empty," said Jim Dilettoso, the scientist. "It was a power cord connected to a power supply connected to some red lights. Other than that was some stuff super-glued in there, pieces of junk, to give it weight and bulk."

    Priest later said he just did not feel safe entrusting his secrets to anyone else.

    Strong was prepared to not let the same thing happen again. He scheduled five sessions at Intertek Testing Services, a respected Orlando lab, beginning in November 1998. Priest still refused to let anyone take apart and analyze the units, but consented to setting up tests that were designed and witnessed by Intertek engineers.

    Priest demonstrates his invention's high-speed data delivery capabilities in the workshop behind his former home in Palatka.
    -- Special

    Letters to Linda Priest from those engineers confirmed the first three tests were all successful. An Intertek engineer declined to comment, saying the test results were confidential.

    Priest and Strong also enticed General Dynamics, the Virginia-based technology giant, which paid the Priests $70,000 in good-faith money and signed a deal in August 1999 to develop a marketable product.

    That deal gave Hyperlight the cachet it needed to move forward. Strong amassed around $1.5 million from high-stakes investors, most from Naples.

    The Priests received more than $1 million of that and bought the half-million-dollar house in a gated community in St. Augustine, as well as at least five motorcycles and three other cars and trucks.

    The Priests also cashed in on a deal a month later with a telecommunications company called Telecom Wireless Corp. The company went bankrupt, but not before paying the Priests $400,000 and investing another $300,000 in Hyperlight.

    The deal also connected Hyperlight with John Sununu, former White House chief of staff under the first President Bush. Sununu, an investor in Telecom Wireless, said he offered to bring in engineers to help perfect Priest's invention.

    Sununu never invested in Hyperlight, though, as he became convinced Priest was hiding something.

    "He [Priest] seemed very secretive," said Sununu, who has a Ph.D. in engineering. "I can understand when people are telling me something, and when they're avoiding telling me something."

    Stalling for dollars

    After the General Dynamics and Telecom Wireless deals were signed, Priest's stall tactics resurfaced. At least 10 times during his relationship with Strong, court records indicate, Priest claimed prototypes were fried by lightning strikes.

    "That was a running joke," Strong said, "but nobody could laugh at it."

    The next month, General Dynamics terminated its agreement with Hyperlight because Priest failed to deliver working prototypes. At a shareholders meeting that fall, Strong and Priest were visibly at odds.

    "He [Priest] was stonewalling and Mark [Strong] was extremely frustrated," said Motley, Strong's friend who invested in Hyperlight. "Madison said he couldn't perform under all this pressure."

    Still, though, Strong pushed forward, and Priest's claims about his invention grew even more audacious.

    Forget the phone lines, he said in late 2000 -- he had made the system wireless. With just a regular mobile phone and his magic box, anyone could have a super-speed data connection anywhere, 1,000 times faster than a traditional dial-up. He even demonstrated a completely mobile version, powered through a car's cigarette lighter.

    The implications were staggering. Some of the possible uses listed in a confidential memo that Hyperlight sent to potential investors in March 2001 included:

    Wireless modems for laptop computers, with connections fast enough to not just surf the Internet but also watch live television.

    Television set-top boxes that would allow viewers to instantly order any movie or music selection.

    Global positioning satellite units with full-color, high-resolution aerial photos with animated map lines. Two more Intertek tests that winter showed the wireless units performing as promised. Video of the January test shows Priest -- using nothing more than a Nokia mobile phone and a Hyperlight unit -- receiving live satellite television, supposedly being sent over the mobile phone from Priest's home.
    The wireless breakthrough launched Hyperlight into its most ambitious and potentially profitable deal, signing with Intel, one of the largest and most dominant technology firms in American history.

    'Greed in overdrive'

    It was the deal they had been waiting for, one that not even Priest could bypass in hopes of something better coming along. It would have paid Hyperlight $1 million on delivery and unimaginably more in royalties. There was only one hurdle: Priest had to turn over working prototypes by Sept. 25, 2001.

    That day, Priest told Strong he had a serious accident while working on his son's car that injured his hand so severely that he could not bring the units to St. Petersburg, where a manufacturing lab associated with Intel was supposed to take possession of the technology.

    Priest demonstrates his invention's high-speed data delivery capabilities in the workshop behind his former home in Palatka.
    -- Special

    "Madison ... he's like Lex Luthor," Strong said. "He will really use anybody."

    When Priest once again failed to deliver, Intel terminated the agreement, and Strong and Hyperlight finally turned against the inventor. Intel officials did not return repeated calls seeking comment.

    Strong filed suit in Naples last October, accusing the Priests of fraud. If the technology does not exist, Strong wants to end the fraud. If it does exist, he wants to force Priest to turn it over to Hyperlight.

    Priest, 46, was in jail last week -- the first time he has served related to his invention -- serving a 90-day sentence for contempt of court. After a three-hour hearing on April 24, a Pinellas County judge enforced an existing contempt order against the inventor, written in January when he failed to produce prototypes in court.

    In videotape of a January meeting, Priest tells Strong that no working prototypes exist today. He destroyed them, he said, after Intel pulled out.

    "I saw no need to maintain hardware that could be a security risk to Hyperlight," Priest said.

    Strong was incredulous that Priest had destroyed his prized invention, leading his lawyers to press for Priest's incarceration.

    Priest was immediately sent to jail at the hearing last month, but the brief victory celebrated by his embittered former partners disappeared even faster than the dream Priest once promised them.

    The judge's order said Priest could be released early if he delivered the technology, but at an April 24 hearing the inventor testified he cannot build replacements because he has been unable to find acceptable parts.

    Priest's lawyers argued to an appeals court he was being held improperly because he was jailed for failing to turn over something he said he could not possibly produce. A week after he was booked into the Pinellas jail, he was again a free man.

    "There is no money left from this, and the prospect of litigation going on for God knows how long," Strong said. The same issue eventually forced Zekko to settle with Priest last summer for little more than stock in Hyperlight.

    But while Priest fights Strong and Hyperlight, he appears to be starting the cycle again with new sets of investors.

    "As a fresh tuna, you don't know anything about this, and, what's more, you don't care," Strong said. "Your greed is in overdrive."

    New test casts doubt

    Information about Priest's current deals is far more vague than his past, but some investors suspect the stakes exceed anything he has attempted before.

    Burl Sheppard, a Tampa high-tech fund-raiser who saw a demonstration of the wireless technology last spring, was smitten. He and his partners spent three or four months -- and hundreds of thousands of dollars -- arranging more demonstrations and soliciting investments. They were planning on paying $10 million for exclusive rights to distribute the technology in the United States and China, Sheppard said.

    Before any money began flowing in, though, Sheppard said he made a shocking discovery during a demonstration in Myrtle Beach, S.C. While displaying the wireless technology for a high-tech firm, Sheppard picked up the mobile phone that supposedly was being used to receive the data.

    Priest, always rigid about anyone handling the equipment, shot out of his seat and yelled at Sheppard to put the phone down.

    "The screen [of the phone] was black," Sheppard said. "There wasn't even a call taking place."

    He now suspects that Priest was somehow broadcasting the signal with a briefcase DVD player. Sheppard pulled back almost immediately, he said, but not all his investors were convinced it was a scam.

    On Sept. 26 -- the day after the accident Priest said kept him from traveling to St. Petersburg -- the inventor and at least one of Sheppard's contacts flew to Norway for a massive fund-raising trip, according to Sheppard and other sources familiar with the deal. They said that trip led to $5 million to $10 million in new investments. Priest has also recently been linked with an electric company in Philadelphia, and he testified in court that he has developed a separate technology that sends data over power lines.

    Madison Priest holds up a mobile phone showing the Palatka phone number he used to demonstrate the wireless version of his magic box technology during a test in Orlando.
    -- Special

    Strong hopes that power-line technology will be Priest's undoing. He argued it is simply an evolution of Hyperlight's magic box, and is therefore owned by Hyperlight under an intellectual-property contract Priest signed in 1999. The judge in St. Petersburg has ordered Priest to produce a power-line unit in court by the end of June, after which experts for both sides will argue whether it is truly a different creation than the Hyperlight technology.

    But Strong and others who have followed Priest's story said the inventor has faced deadlines before. They are skeptical that this one will be different, because Priest has always managed to elude a moment of truth.

    "The cleverness is not in the invention, but the deception," said Strong, who said he is now 90 percent sure the entire affair was a hoax.

    But does it work?

    Engineers have tested the box -- engineers hired by Zekko, by Strong, by General Dynamics -- but they could never prove it really worked. Labs have tested the box -- reputable labs that run tests for Intel, Sony and Yamaha -- but never without Priest running the tests. Over eight years of deals and contracts, none of Priest's major investors has ever possessed a working unit.

    But no one has been able to disprove the technology, which may be why Priest has collected at least $6 million and possibly many times that.

    "He's a little country bumpkin with bib overalls, but he'll get the gold out of your teeth," said Al Keyser, CEO of a South Carolina technology company that hosted a demonstration last summer. "He's got some heavyweight people that he's put this with -- it's going to bite him."

    The shadow of doubt, though, dwells in his mind, as it does with investors at every stop on Priest's timeline. For every obvious scam, hoax and con, there have been demonstrations so convincing that neither engineers nor scientists can fathom how they were staged. Unless Strong or another of Priest's jilted former partners succeeds in forcing his hand in court, investors and scientists say no one may ever really know the truth. Linda Priest said she reported Priest to the FBI while they were estranged in 1998, and Mons said he was interviewed by an agent. The FBI will not comment on whether a case exists, but a law enforcement source said there is no active investigation.

    Even if the technology does work, many investors suspect they will never see profits without a lengthy court fight -- a fight most of them cannot afford.

    "I put money in knowing it was a risk that the technology might not work, but I never thought the guy might be a fraud and a con man," said Dave Wild, a candle-shop owner from South Florida who invested $63,000 with Zekko and the Priests. "When you find out he's a fraud and a crook, it's no different than him walking into my house and stealing $63,000 worth of my stuff."

    Strong has another theory, based on years of watching Priest's glee at forcing corporate multimillionaires to coddle him. As long as they needed the secrets locked in Priest's brain, they were forced to make him the center of their universe, flying him around the country on their private jets and hosting him at lavish meals. Turning over the technology would have made him rich, Strong said, but yanked him from the spotlight.

    Priest, who originally agreed to be interviewed but changed his mind on his lawyer's advice, made only a single comment about his invention:

    "I'm not sure that technology will ever see the light of day."

    Times-Union library director Jennifer O'Neill and staff writer Marilyn Young contributed to this report.

    Staff writer Matthew I. Pinzur can be reached at (904) 359-4025 or via e-mail at mpinzur@jacksonville.com.

  128. todays article by danknight · · Score: 1

    http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/0506 02/met_9326453.html

    --
    wanted: one clever sig,apply within
  129. Fairy tales can come true, it can happen to you... by PegQuin · · Score: 1

    When a desire to believe supersedes common sense, scientific analysis and verification people will get screwed. It's pretty scary how so many people, wielding so much money can be so fundamentally stupid.

    --
    PegQuin--I've got a sneakin' suspicion
  130. I wonder... by Denium · · Score: 1

    ...if it can run Duke Nukem Forever?

  131. Re:Breakthroughs do happen by betavolt · · Score: 1

    The person to talk to on their technical team about stimulated decay theory is Dr. Ruggero Santilli Director of The Institute for Basic Research Dr. Alex Ignatiev has been brought in to develop the energy conversion technology. That is his specialty. He is named on a couple of dozen patents, mostly in energy conversion technologies and superconductivity.

  132. Re:Breakthroughs do happen by betavolt · · Score: 1

    The link above needs to be edited but that function is not in this message board. It is Institute for Basic Research Dr. Santilli is a pretty revolutionary scientist

  133. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by WarpedMind · · Score: 1

    Gee. I thought that was what patents were suppose to do. Protect the inventors of truely new ideas from being copied while the inventor was able to re-coup profits.

    Even if someone did peek inside and say "Gee whiz I can build this easily enough," a real product would have no problem getting investors to fight any ensuing court battle.

    The original poster was right. Somebody makes claims like this, cover your wallet.

    Also I wouldn't be surprised if this guy gets a Soprano type investor and then gets a demonstration of another type of black box.

  134. Patents are not worthless by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    Another reason why patents are worthless pieces of paper.

    This is obviously incorrect. Priest's patent helped him make millions of dollars!! Just because it's total BS doesn't mean it's worthless, as long as some morons believe it means something.

    What's funny to me is how he extracted all that money from large corporations. It'd be good if more people could swindle big greedy corporations like that. Imagine if someone could swindle MS out of part of that $40 billion they're sitting on...

  135. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by Grotus · · Score: 1

    Unless of course it is a prototype lightning rod.

    --
    "From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH
  136. OK all you scam-bashers, try this by IPFreely · · Score: 2
    So you all see right through this, do you? you think it was sooo obvious what he was doing that you can't understand how anyone could be taken in?

    If I was going to try to pull a scam like this, and I wanted to take in as many of you as possible, I'd do it this way:

    "I've just found the most advanced Artificial Intelligence algorithm ever. It is smarter than an average human in a wide variety of roles and can operate independantly on new untezted situations."

    "I am a PHD in mathematics and game theory with deep experience in AI design. My new algorithm is actually a nested set of several common AI and gaming algorithms, most of which have been published in other places. However, I have stacked them together in a format that makes it highly adaptive with a N-Net framework that uses a variety of specialty algorithms to handle specific problems and an adaptive gaming algorithm to handle unknown situations. It's performance actually surprised me when I first used it. It was a happy adaptation that brought unexpected cohesion to the process. It works by initially guessing about unknown factors in a new situations and attempting to use a known algorithm to handle it. It it fails, the N-Net adapts and a new method is selected until one works. Complex situations are recognized as sets of specific events that can usually be recognized and treated separately."

    "I'm sorry I don't have a full fledge gaming experience to show you, (I'm not a video game programmer, no graphics), but I have a simplistic interface that you can use to give it a basic Turing Test"

    (demos typing interface, question and answer, it responds very intelligently. Other people are allowed to suggest questions, it responds very well.)

    "So you see, all I need is a solid application framework to install it in, and you have the most intellegent application ever."

    "So who's interested?"

    That is how a scam works.

    (Oh, by the way, that demo was a real person on the other end of a hidden communication channel)

    --
    There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  137. Somebody inform Alex Ignatiev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Does that mean Alex Ignatiev may not even know that he is listed on the Betavoltaic website as a member of the Technical Team?

    Anybody care to tell him or call him at (713)743-3621 (office)?

    1. Re:Somebody inform Alex Ignatiev by betavolt · · Score: 1

      That is an absurd assumption. Dr. Ignatiev is signed into a contract with Betavoltaic Industries Inc. Certainly he is aware that he is listed on the company website. He contributed in the authoring of the technology white paper. Dr. Ignatiev is a stock holder in the company and is kept informed about the goings on in the company. What is your point in this attack on this company?

  138. A Scam by L-Train8 · · Score: 1

    I like the name he had for his product: which he named advanced sub-carrier modulation (ASCM). The initials look like A SCaM.

    --

    Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
  139. Anonymous you are Not by betavolt · · Score: 1

    You are hardly anonymous. You will not avoid our legal right to protect our copyright which you have violated. You will not avoid legal action for posting Dr. Ignatiev's work phone and email address. This is harassment. The guy is trying to work. He has a full time job as a professor at UH. His work for Betavoltaic Industries Inc is by contract on the side. Why would you want the man harassed at this full time job? We will be contacting your ISP to determine who you are and that information will be given to our legal department. You had better get a lawyer.
    IP Address: 64.130.70.93 Connection: dsl-64-130-70-93.telocity.com Browser: Mozilla/4.76 [en] Operating System: (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18pre15 i686) IP trace: Telocity (NETBLK-TELOCITY-3) 10355 N. De Anza Blvd Cupertino, CA 95014

  140. Re:Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof... by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

    There, is, though a healthy secondhand trade in them on cmu.misc.market. I trust with a little effort you could easily secure one for $5.

    --
    There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
    Max V.
    NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
  141. Interesting by user32.ExitWindowsEx · · Score: 2

    It's been 9 days since this story hit. Today I got a package in the mail from my mother --- in it was a copy of the article and a note. Turns out that she actually taught Madison in high school.

    --
    "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet