Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Top 5 Technology Panics of 2009

Posted by timothy on from the top-five-beats-top-10-hands-down dept.

destinyland writes "An A.I. researcher lists the Top 5 Technology Panics of 2009 — along with the corresponding reality. There's exploding iPods, the uproar over 'bombing' the moon, and even a flesh-eating robot. But in each case, he supplies some much-needed perspective. 'These incidents are incredibly rare ... the rocket stage weighs around two tons, while the Moon weighs in at a 73,477,000,000,000,000,000 tons... and desecration of the dead is against the laws of war — and plant matter is a much better fuel source anyway.'"

146 comments

  1. Not even worth... by LukeWebber · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    ...a "first post" post.

  2. The entire Internet is a panic then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In the "sexting" one, it mentions this quote: "[the cell phone's] portability and user friendliness -- makes it extremely easy to get and send pornographic images of anyone."

    So the entire Internet is a panic then?

    1. Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? by quantumplacet · · Score: 1

      well, "the internet" is slightly less portable than a cell phone. maybe if you took apart the tubes and put them in the back of a truck, but even then it's still harder to fit in your pocket than a cell phone.

    2. Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The panic is that kids think that pictures given privately to their friends are going to be kept that way... nope. One wrong friend who publishes it and there's no end to it.

      Look what happened to Vanessa Hudgens. She was a Disney star with a song out and part of the High School Musical cast. A picture she knew was being taken gets out, and suddenly it's a career-ended.

    3. Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Funny

      So the entire Internet is a panic then?

      Pfft. Old news. That's why *I* only buy cell phones with the words DON'T PANIC written in large friendly letters on their covers.

    4. Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 2, Informative

      well, "the internet" is slightly less portable than a cell phone.

      "The Internet" is just a giant network, so qualifying or quantifying its "portability" is pretty meaningless. The Internet is already everywhere that the network reaches, and so does not need to travel from place to place. However, if we define the "portability" of something as the "ability of a person to use the thing regardless of physical location", then the portability of the Internet is entirely dependent on the portability of the computer and the ubiquity of Internet access points (likely wireless) in the area.

      And given that mobile telecommunication networks are being used increasingly for Internet access as well as mobile phone service, one might argue that the Internet is exactly as portable as a cell phone. Maybe even more portable, since more portable devices than just cell phones can access the Internet.

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    5. Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The panic is that kids think that pictures given privately to their friends are going to be kept that way... nope. One wrong friend who publishes it and there's no end to it.

      This is semi-off-topic, but what you said here reminds me of something that happened on a web forum I used to moderate on. We had a private section for the staff to have discussions in. Once in a while a user would get into it with another user and because of the formation of various cliques sometimes that'd rock the boat for several members of the staff in the private forum. One staff member in particular was a little too abrasive when describing the offending users that weren't in his group of friends. I tried to warn him that he should be careful about what he says. Just because it's 'private' doesn't mean that somebody watching couldn't do a copy/paste. He replied with "I shouldn't have to censor what I say, blah blah blah!" A month or so later he did manage to use the right series of words aimed at the right person at the right time for another member of the staff to see it, get pissed, and send an e-mail to the person he bad-mouthed to see what was being said behind his back. He, of course, shot into orbit. The funny thing is, if he had done this in public view, it probably would have been a short lived series of fireworks. But because he did this in a private forum, this guy got so angry he created a bunch of threads talking about how shitty the site is, then he told his story to people in another forum and for several days they'd come in and start trouble. The staff member in question never did admit to me that I was right.

      Anyway, so what does that have to do with the topic at hand? You are absolutely right about the concern of the 'one wrong friend'. I'd be extra concerned when talking about teenagers and their ever-changing groups of friends and enemies. In general there's a lesson to be learned about being careful what you say when it can be copied verbatim for the rest of time. It's kinda sad, though, that the 'sexting' stories about consequences are getting more attention than the stories about people saying the wrong thing on Facebook and getting fired.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Or hell, just having pictures of yourself being happy on facebook

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    7. Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need mod: -1, no sense of humor. Or -1, dense.

    8. Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Do you work at East Anglia CRU?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    9. Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? by tomrud · · Score: 1

      A picture she knew was being taken gets out, and suddenly it's a career-ended.

      Career-ended? It seems that according to IMDB she's involved in four more movies after High School Musical.

      She want be part of the HSM series anymore, because according to the story her character left school after the third movie. Maybe that's what confuses you.

      I have a seven year old daughter, that's why I know a few things about High School Musical.

      --
      For a nice date: Call strftime(3C)!
    10. Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Hehe. No.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:The entire Internet is a panic then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooshing sound.....Head.... Nevermind, you probably won't get *that* joke either.

  3. Plant matter is good... by thatkid_2002 · · Score: -1, Redundant

    but animal fats are better!

  4. Large Haldron Collider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Black Holes Won't Destroy the Earth

    "Probabaly."

    1. Re:Large Haldron Collider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's an RSS feed use can use to keep tabs on wether or not the LHC has destroyed the earth. Very useful site.

    2. Re:Large Haldron Collider by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I'll just wait for the story about the blackhole sucking up the Earth to show up here. Ok, it'll take a while, but we'll be on the even horizon of it for an awful long time. Oh ya, time dilation. We wouldn't know if it had already started. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Large Haldron Collider by LostCluster · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Malformed XML that doesn't update regularly? Not useful.

    4. Re:Large Haldron Collider by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, you will be sure to get multiple stories about it here.

      It will be just like you didn't know what you didn't know what you missed.

    5. Re:Large Haldron Collider by DarthBender · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's an RSS feed use can use to keep tabs on wether or not the LHC has destroyed the earth. Very useful site.

      Check the page source for that site. It is quite interesting.

    6. Re:Large Haldron Collider by feepness · · Score: 1

      Mine said 'YES'! What do I do?!

    7. Re:Large Haldron Collider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Watch the live webcam.

    8. Re:Large Haldron Collider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27331.0

    9. Re:Large Haldron Collider by mgvrolijk · · Score: 1

      Wrong box, kitty.

    10. Re:Large Haldron Collider by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, no LHC black hole will destroy the earth, but you never know when a stray will come floating by our way.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    11. Re:Large Haldron Collider by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Don't panic, and get to a bar. Bring a towel. Do not bother looking for spaceships, the towel is only there in case any drinks spill on you as you get sucked into the black hole.

    12. Re:Large Haldron Collider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry... if you miss the story the first time, it'll be duped before slashdot goes offline.

  5. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    ...liquor is quicker...

  6. Sexting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Give me a break. Does it matter who commits the crime? Does it mean that if a minor kills another minor it's really not murder?

    1. Re:Sexting by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Laws were meant to keep people from harming one another. "sexting" harms no one.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Sexting by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Laws were meant to keep people from harming one another. "sexting" harms no one.

      That assumes that the sender and receiver are playing by the same rules - and the communication is genuinely private.

      Not being intercepted and exploited by others.

      You have a problem is one of the parties a minor and the other an adult. You have a problem if the text or images are being shared or broadcast without consent.

    3. Re:Sexting by Phil06 · · Score: 0

      Laws were meant to catch and punish people who harm one another. Only their concience will prevent it.

      --
      "...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
    4. Re:Sexting by plastbox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, their conscience and the fear of reprisal and punishment.

    5. Re:Sexting by martas · · Score: 1

      that is only one point of view, and not a very popular one, as it turns out. don't get me wrong, i think that should be the guiding principle behind legislation, but these days it's all about getting reelected, which is easiest when you manage to scare people into thinking that the law you're proposing saves them from being abducted and raped by satan.

      --
      weinersmith
    6. Re:Sexting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This makes no sense. Are you going to make it a crime for teenagers to shower naked because someone could, conceivably, secretly videotape them while doing so?

      Even disregarding the utter stupidity of this line of reasoning, how on Earth would it keep someone from being exploited and harmed to make them a CRIMINAL?

      For the record, BTW, whether I think "sexting" is acceptable doesn't depend on the relative ages of the participants, either. People are either old enough to do it or not; if they are old enough to send naked pictures to a 16-year old friend, they're also old enough to do the same with a 19-year old friend, or a 50-year old friend. Similarly, if they're not old enough to do so with a 50-year old friend, they're also not old enough to do so with a 16-year old friend.

      And finally and most importantly, when someone is too young, too immature, too much of a CHILD to be allowed to take or send naked pictures of themselves, what on Earth makes you think they're old enough to be put in jail (or otherwise punished)? The very fact that someone's mature enough to be put on trial and sentenced proves that they're mature enough to be in charge of their own life (including their own body).

    7. Re:Sexting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It harms how the puritans view their children.

      Makes they doubt the image they have of children as asexual, cute and oblivious animals you have to feed once and then. And that scares the fuck out of them.

      Maybe a little blunt, but I can't think of another reason. Perhaps some politicians are so retarded, they think the spirit of the law is "asexualize all children"?

    8. Re:Sexting by JustOK · · Score: 0

      your premise that "'sexting' harms no one" is false.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    9. Re:Sexting by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      The communications themselves are not necessarily harmful if performed by consenting parties on both sides. The interception and exploitation of that communication is harmful.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    10. Re:Sexting by t0p · · Score: 1

      your premise that "'sexting' harms no one" is false.

      Evidence? Or are you just expressing an opinion?

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    11. Re:Sexting by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      And thus the "Sex Offender List" becomes a address book where people can get all the info they need about horny little brats who like to show off. Isn't moronic legislation^W^W technology great?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    12. Re:Sexting by JustOK · · Score: 1

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29546030/

      "...sent nude pictures of herself to a boyfriend. When they broke up, he sent them to other high school girls. The girls were harassing her, calling her a slut and a whore. She was miserable and depressed, afraid even to go to school."

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    13. Re:Sexting by ZygnuX · · Score: 1

      Well, the same could happen if instead of nude pics, they were her panties, or a very cheesy love letter, or a webcam striptease, or anything you might call private and part of a love relationship. Does that mean that we have tu punish the girl? Nope. Does that mean we (her parents, school, whatever) have to teach her better? Definitely. Criminalizing (Does that word exist?) something doesn't teach you better.

    14. Re:Sexting by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Under current laws, it would be the original girl herself guilty of a serious crime, for making the images in the first place (the fact that it's of her own body is irrelevant).

      So that helps us how, exactly?

    15. Re:Sexting by JustOK · · Score: 0

      Yes, "Criminalizing" is a word. *cough*dictionary*cough*

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    16. Re:Sexting by JustOK · · Score: 1

      there would be things like counseling to commit a crime, the crime of forwarding the images to others.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    17. Re:Sexting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In reality, there's very little I can do that will have zero impact on any other person. Whether that impact can be called harmful is not always as clear as some people would have you believe.

    18. Re:Sexting by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      I think you're being incredibly short-sighted. Did you forget about the intense amounts of peer pressure that can be placed on a teenager? People can be convinced to do things well outside of their normal purview, simply by convincing them that it is the only way to be socially accepted. Teenagers have been shown to have very limited reasoning skills and not to be able to see all of the possible consequences of their actions.

      While I do believe that in most cases, sexting is probably a victimless crime, there are indeed many instances in which the victims are very real. Skeazy boyfriend convinces girlfriend to give him nudes only to turn around and show his friends. Scheming girl gets boy to give her nudes so she can publicly embarrass him. We could continue to play this game for a long time, but I'm sure you get the point.

      The other main problem that I have is the transition from this being a private issue between two consenting people and being very public between one teenager and a much larger audience. If taking nude photos of yourself and distributing them is perfectly legal for teenagers to do, what happens to child pornography laws? Do pervy adults start convincing teenagers to take pictures based on all of the money that they can make on the internet? If they take the pictures themselves, they'd be legal, in Vermont anyway.

      So many times, people here on Slashdot like to make things black and white, when in reality, the situation is almost entirely gray.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
  7. Weight... by itedo · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    You cannot weigh the moon, this is nonsense.

    "The mass of the moon is 7,35E22 kg" sounds correctly to me - which is determined by the Newton's law of gravity.

    ... 73,477,000,000,000,000,000 tons

    Which uncertainty? Is it EXACTLY 7,3477E19 tons?!

    Sounds like a "journalist" wrote this article ... Please feel free to discuss or correct me if I'm wrong ... *sigh*

    1. Re:Weight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You cannot weigh the moon, this is nonsense.

      BS. Sure you can weigh the moon. We can calculate it's weight very well by multiplying it's mass by g (F=M*a). Even so, in my country a tonne is exactly 1000kg. So even when the guy is referring to "weight" he really means mass.

    2. Re:Weight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhh, you can do it really easy: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99487.htm

    3. Re:Weight... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      As O'l Archimedes said: Give me a place to stand and I'll weigh the moon for you.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    4. Re:Weight... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Informative

      ... 73,477,000,000,000,000,000 tons

      Which uncertainty? Is it EXACTLY 7,3477E19 tons?!

          No. The correct nomenclature is 7.3477x10^19. And we certainly know it to 5 significant figures, which is all original value in TFA states.

                Brett

    5. Re:Weight... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Which value of g do you use? It varies from point to point. And if you use the nominal value at sea level, at which location does the moon surface hit the waves?

    6. Re:Weight... by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even so, in my country a tonne is exactly 1000kg.

      In the US and most the rest of the world, it is too. But the article wrote ton which is short for a "short ton" which refers to a short imperial ton.

      The differences is that a tonne is a "metric ton" equal to 1000 kg or 2204 lbs, an "Imperial ton" (also known as a long ton) is 2240 lbs, or about 1016 kg, and a ton, known also as a short ton, is 2000 lbs or roughly 907 kg.

      It gets a little more confusing when they use the word tonne in combination with energy proxies like in explaining the strength of a bomb or explosion as in how many tonnes of TNT it is comparable to or with amounts of force as in a 10mega tonne bomb. Or in combination with certain metal trades where they calculate the amount of metal in a long ton of ore by the percentage or metal within the ore. Then there are hold overs from traditions like in the HVAC world where AC is generally measure in ton(s) referring to how heat absorption and how heat would be displaced by a ton of ice in one day. Melting one ton of ice in this way or a 1 ton AC unit would be equal to about 12,000 BTU/h or 3517 Watts/h or 12,661,200 joules of energy per hour.

    7. Re:Weight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot weigh the moon, this is nonsense.

      BS. Sure you can weigh the moon. We can calculate it's weight very well by multiplying it's mass by g (F=M*a). Even so, in my country a tonne is exactly 1000kg. So even when the guy is referring to "weight" he really means mass.

      You have a pretty severe conceptual error here. I don't know why you think you can multiply a mass by g to get its weight, but this is generally incorrect and only works in one specific case--on the surface of the Earth with no significant fluid pressure relative to the object (i.e. you can take the mass of a brick on the surface of the Earth and use that equation, but you can't do the same for a helium balloon in air or a boat on water).

      Weight is a force. While there are relations between mass and force, they are still fundamentally different things. A 5g lead ball weighed in air and in submerged in water will have different weights, even though the mass is constant and the gravitational field is unchanged.

    8. Re:Weight... by CountBrass · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're confusing accuracy and precision.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    9. Re:Weight... by Sique · · Score: 1

      It is pretty easy to weigh the Moon. Put it on the surface of a known mass(*) and measure the gravitational force between the two masses. The force is called "weight".

      (*) You can also put a known mass on the surface of the Moon. Makes no difference for the measurement.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:Weight... by wed128 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You must be fun at parties

    11. Re:Weight... by ZygnuX · · Score: 1

      Better way to do it. Just push really hard, and see how much it accelerates.

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

      ... 73,477,000,000,000,000,000 tons

      Which uncertainty? Is it EXACTLY 7,3477E19 tons?!

          No. The correct nomenclature is 7.3477x10^19. And we certainly know it to 5 significant figures, which is all original value in TFA states.

                Brett

      Who weighed it?

    13. Re:Weight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who sacrifice accuracy for precision deserve neither.

    14. Re:Weight... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Don't you also need to know the distance to the center of gravity of the moon to complete that equation?

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
    15. Re:Weight... by Sique · · Score: 1

      If you want to calculate the mass from the measurement, then yes. If you just want to know the weight, then no.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    16. Re:Weight... by dotgain · · Score: 1
      Give him a break - the conversation was already nerdy and pedantic, he's only engaging in debate.

      Save the "must be fun at parties" line for people who over-analyse jokes or provide pointless quibbles. If you thought his post was too nitpicky or boring, you might be in the wrong place.

  8. A.I. researcher by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thomas McCabe is a mathematics student at Yale University and a research associate at the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence.

    Not sure that's the mainstream definition of "A.I. researcher", but more relevantly, I can think of another technology panic that seems to keep recurring that the Singularity Institute might have something to do with.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    1. Re:A.I. researcher by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      And I don't even see how that credential has anything to do with this "Year's dumbest stories" piece.

    2. Re:A.I. researcher by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      in fairness, he is pretty optimistic for a guy whose name sounds like macabre...

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  9. There's an app for that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    If you want a bricked iPhone, there's an app for that you can't refuse.
    If you want an exploding battery on an iPhone, there's an app for that.
    Here at Crapple, we strive to give you a crappy overpriced product for you fudgepacking, twinkie sucking faggots out there.

    1. Re:There's an app for that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      Haha, take that you fucktarded racist cracker! You lost out on your fucking flamebait mod and got a measly redu7ndant mod. Why don't you do humanity a fucking favor and down a nice, tall cold glass of fucking bleach.

  10. I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. by Akira+Kogami · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seriously, giant robots devouring the mangled corpses of our enemies? Yes, please!

    1. Re:I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. by shentino · · Score: 1

      They are still human!

      If they weren't then we wouldn't give a shit about following Geneva conventions.

    2. Re:I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I die, I want my body to be consumed by this robot. You wouldn't deny a dead person their final wish, would you? Ignore the laws of war, I'm CONSENTING to be eaten after I die.

    3. Re:I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. by Akira+Kogami · · Score: 1

      But they're dead humans! I think it would be badass enough to excuse any human rights violations there.

    4. Re:I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. by shentino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Logically speaking you are correct.

      Humans, however, are hardly rational beings. If they were, however, the point would be moot as dead bodies on the battle-field would not exist in the first place.

    5. Re:I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. by mrjb · · Score: 1

      Sadly, who plays by the rules won't win the war.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    6. Re:I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. by oreaq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you believe that a "rational being" would not wage war or even kill other people (or other "rational beings")?

    7. Re:I wish that robot WAS flesh-eating. by Akira+Kogami · · Score: 1

      Going to war when necessary to protect your nation's interests isn't rational?

  11. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Every comment so far on this article has been modded down at least once. Who the fuck gets mod points around here anymore? Slashdot is quickly outliving it's usefulness.

    1. Re:WTF? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      heh usefulness?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:WTF? by Rehnberg · · Score: 1

      Cleans up the battlefield... Makes biofuel... Possibilities are endless...

    3. Re:WTF? by causality · · Score: 1

      Cleans up the battlefield... Makes biofuel... Possibilities are endless...

      Slashdot does all of that?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  12. Mod Parent Down... oops, it's the story! by LostCluster · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We're already on the 3rd, about to roll over to the 4th day of the year. (And some of our international readers are already there.) We're still doing year-end pieces? CES can't come soon enough.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Down... oops, it's the story! by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Better than before the end of the year. Remember the scramble during the tsunami of 2004? Many of the year end "top" stories had to be re-written.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  13. How is the LHC not on here? by Rehnberg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The day before it powered up, my physics teacher had to field a dozen or so inane questions about how it would destroy the Earth, and more than a few kids decided not to do their homework. Then again, the panic could also fall under "Public Science Knowledge FAIL"

    1. Re:How is the LHC not on here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was 2008 iirc

    2. Re:How is the LHC not on here? by broken_chaos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      more than a few kids decided not to do their homework

      Hardly surprising, given it's a newer excuse than "dog ate it". Maybe someone will believe they were actually afraid and cut them a break for going out and getting drunk instead of doing their work...

    3. Re:How is the LHC not on here? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Then latter they realized that the math was done incorrectly and that the likelihood of the LHC creating an Earth destroying black hole was significantly more likely than previously believed.

    4. Re:How is the LHC not on here? by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 3, Informative

      The mathematics is largely redundant is answering the question of whether the LHC will destroy the earth. Particle collisions that are exactly the same (as well as some that are more powerful) as the ones in the LHC have been occurring in the earth's atmosphere ever since it first formed. If the earth has had several billion years to be eaten by blackholes or stranglets produced by one of these interactions, and still hasn't, then it's pretty safe to assume that those interactions simply don't produce those byproducts.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    5. Re:How is the LHC not on here? by maxume · · Score: 1

      There was no (general) panic, only small groups of people who didn't believe what the physicists were telling them.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:How is the LHC not on here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sure, it works that way in practice, but does it work that way in theory?

    7. Re:How is the LHC not on here? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The world could have ended" would be a rubbish excuse in a physics lesson.

      "My homework is in my bag, but the act of observing it may destroy it" would be much more worthy of being let off.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:How is the LHC not on here? by aaron+alderman · · Score: 1

      Yeah but atmospheric particle collisions are natural whereas the LHC is man-made!!!

  14. Conficker April 1st by ScottCooperDotNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about the incredibly overrated Conficker / Kido / Downadup worm that was going to cause the end of the Internet on April 1st 2009? Big media blew it out of proportion considering Microsoft had patched the flaw and all major AV vendors had protected against it months before April 1st. The only people really affected by it were the patch-avoiders.

    1. Re:Conficker April 1st by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      That was exactly what I expected when I saw the title. It was quite funny to watch Twitter/Facebook on people who "got" the virus and were scared to death. Because, we all know a botnet is going to have little "YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED" messages and pop ups...

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Conficker April 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have no idea how many "patch-avoiders" there are. It might come to you as a surprise but people don't always choose the most rational thing to do. (Which is part of why they're using windoze to begin with...)

    3. Re:Conficker April 1st by zkiwi34 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which of course waves away the observation that more than a few million computers got zoinked with Confiker and its variants. Ah well, I guess if it's only a couple of million then it must be over-rated.

  15. Fris7 pSot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Bought the farm... turned over to yet Be in a scene and here, but what !is

  16. Death-by-IPv4 by lq_x_pl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It gave me a chuckle to see this story immediately above yet another article on the rapidly diminishing number of IPv4 addresses, and the doom awaiting us when they run out.

    --
    An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
  17. Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    After the rumors started making their way around the Internet, EATR's designers stepped in to clarify: the "flesh-eating robot" will consume vegetable matter only, and it comes equipped with a suite of sensors and computers to help it determine whether the things it comes across are animal, vegetable or neither. After all, desecration of the dead is against the laws of war and plant matter is a much better fuel source anyway. There are a lot more bushes to feast upon than human bodies.

    Human bodies are better fuel, because it has more energy available per bite. That's why top predators eat meat, though it costs so much energy to get. That mere assertion is no defense.

    The laws of war are more broken than honored. Torture? Lies to invade Iraq? How are those laws stopping terrorists?

    Nobody can be expected to believe those reasons why robots won't eat us. If that's all they've got to say they won't, we can expect these robots "to serve man" pretty soon.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      OTOH, each eaten human can potentially decrase the usage of IPv4

      capcha: brutally

    2. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 1

      How about the simple fact that there are a hell of a lot more plants then there are human corpses on and around the average battlefield? Hoping it will find a corpse to chow down on (after it gets through the body armor and so on) seems like a silly move if it can just start munching away on the local foliage.

      --
      http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
    3. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let me get this straight - you are actually arguing for the propositions in the linked article? You're saying we're not sufficiently terrified of killer cannibal robots, and we need to link this with terrorists somehow? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right now. Everybody panic!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      OTOH, each eaten human can potentially decrase the usage of IPv4

      OTOH, they can still vote (thank goodness).

    5. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me get this straight - you are actually arguing for the propositions in the linked article? You're saying we're not sufficiently terrified of killer cannibal robots, and we need to link this with terrorists somehow? BAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously, I'm laughing so hard right now. Everybody panic!

      If a robot was a cannibal it would eat other robots...

    6. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by Plunky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, a robot that eats dead flesh will do its cleanup then stop when there is no more dead flesh to eat. A robot that eats live plants will continue eating until there are no more plants and we are truly screwed.

    7. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily, while not typically, I tend to think that the battlefield at Gettysburg was more filled with human corpses than plants. And likewise in any large battle in some place like Iraq, it doesn't take that many bodies for the rotting dead to outnumber the vegetation.

    8. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

      Yes, killer robots will eat us. And I posted that specifically so that you would panic. Thanks for playing.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Except the robots designed to eat human flesh will be there only to eat the humans. And there will be plenty of human flesh to fuel their eating frenzy.

      What kind of a war are you running where your robots scare the shit out of the bushes, not the enemy soldiers?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      Human bodies are better fuel, because it has more energy available per bite. That's why top predators eat meat, though it costs so much energy to get. That mere assertion is no defense.

      That is bullshit.
      First of all, calories in meat mainly com from fat, no fat means only a very few calories. Low fat meat has roughly half the calories more fatty meat has.
      Even with fat taken into account (e.g. a fatty T-Bone steak, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat NOTE THIS ARE CALIRIES) meat has roughly 15% of the calories e.g. potatoes have (http://www.nutracheck.co.uk/calories/calories_in_vegetables/calories_in_potatoes.html NOTE then numbers here are kilo-calories

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      meat has roughly 15% of the calories e.g. potatoes have

      Hmmm. Looking at those figures, I would suggest that it's the tedious kilocalories = Calories issue raising its ugly head again.

      Eg. other tables of meat kilocalories suggest it's on par with your potatoes.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    12. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      A lot of the recent conflicts seem to have taken place in desert regions, which don't have a lot of foliage. If we were currently fighting in Vietnam, your comment would make a lot of sense, but with Iraq and even worse, Afghanistan, it doesn't. There isn't a lot growing in those places.

      And remember, it takes a lot less energy to digest meat and get energy from it, than to eat plants and digest them. That's why cows have 4 stomach chambers and rabbits have to eat their own shit, and predators like cats have extremely short digestive tracks by comparison.

      As for body armor, most combatants don't seem to have any of that on these days. Taliban fighters, I imagine, don't have easy access to such things.

    13. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Red herring. Potatoes are not a food that most herbivores can eat; they're roots. Most herbivores, like cows, eat only plants growing above ground: leaves, grass, etc. Only a few animals, like wild pigs and moles, eat tubers naturally.

      More importantly, tubers like potatoes are very hard to digest by most animals, including humans. That's why humans invented "cooking", to make the starchy tuber turn into something more easily digested and absorbed. Some believe this was an important part of human evolution:

      http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

    14. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Tree wood has about 2300 (kilo)calories per pound, while human meat has somewhere from 800-2000 (kilo)calories per pound. But bones have even more calories than wood. And I don't think the flesh-eating robots we've seen can eat wood (or bone), but rather leaves. Which have about 100 (kilo)calories per pound. Meat is a better fuel.

      Bullshit, I couldn't find the calories for.

      Potatoes have some of the highest calories of any staple plant, which is why Europe went through a population explosion after bringing them back from the Western Hemisphere. But there aren't a lot of potatoes in battlefields. Not as many calories per acre as in human bodies. Especially in the camps around the battlefields.

      And why bother sic'ing your ravenous robots on the enemy's potato fields, when they can chew through their troops instead?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    15. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      "We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population"

      heh, I think making a CEO actually have to say this should get some kind of trolling reward or something.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    16. Re:Flesh-eating Robots Will Devour Us All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ugh, *award*

  18. You forgot.. by Thaidog · · Score: 1

    When a hard drive died on one of the servers at my startup... According to management that was definitely the biggest of 2009.

    --

    ||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.

  19. Ignores a lot more panics by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This really ignores a lot of panics that are more relevant in both mass-media and tech circles alike. The main one is the LHC. Even non-geeks were talking about it and the end of the world. Another one is Conficker, you know the virus/botnet that was supposed to destroy the world in April 2009 when it.... did nothing. Then everyone got worried that it would strike the next month... and nothing.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Ignores a lot more panics by GF678 · · Score: 1

      Another one is Conficker, you know the virus/botnet that was supposed to destroy the world in April 2009 when it.... did nothing.

      I wouldn't say that it did "nothing". It caused a lot of pain for IT folks trying to clean that shit out of their networks, that's for sure. On the other hand, it was not as dramatically serious as the media would have you believe (but then the media always blows things out of proportion - that's their job apparently).

  20. Killer electronics is nothing new by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If one works on any piece of machinery without turning it off one is likely to get maimed. Try changing the blades on a lawnmower without disabling it. Or working on the innards of the refrigerator. This has much less to with killer robots than humans that are not nearly scared enough of machinery. I always check twice.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Killer electronics is nothing new by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but combine AI, the ability for robots to consume food (plants or us) to continue to operate and the military and you basically have all the ingredients for a robot apocalypse. Robot is programmed to do its mission at all costs, robot needs fuel, robot eats human and continues on its task.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Killer electronics is nothing new by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      it's nonsense really. the digester is total inefficent, the killer robot is merely a pipe dream.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  21. 3G coverage not available everywhere by tepples · · Score: 1

    one might argue that the Internet is exactly as portable as a cell phone.

    There's a map for that, unless of course you're happy with dial-up speeds for a broadband price.

    1. Re:3G coverage not available everywhere by t0p · · Score: 1

      What about connection via satellite? Can't that be done? If you can use a satellite phone anywhere, why not a satellite connection to the internet?

      --
      http://ihatehate.wordpress.com
    2. Re:3G coverage not available everywhere by tepples · · Score: 1

      What about connection via satellite?

      Existing satellite Internet offerings are for stationary connections, not mobile connections. And even at home, they don't work with hill or trees to your north (in au/nz/za) or south (in the rest of the developed world).

    3. Re:3G coverage not available everywhere by HalifaxRage · · Score: 1

      Motosat

      --
      bomb the us up set someone
  22. Not Worth a Nigger Penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Not even worth a giant nigger dick. No, not even an erect one.

  23. 0th by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Windows 7 got released.

    1. Re:0th by hwyhobo · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean the great panic at One Infinite Loop?

      --
      End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
  24. Flesh Eating Robots - FAIL by nicc777 · · Score: 1

    Obviously they have not battle tested this yet. I have been in a couple of engagements. All I can say is that after the fact there is not much "green stuff" left. The battlefield is mostly burned down. As for deployment in a desert... Well, I'm sure you can figure that out on your own :-)

    --
    Need an ISP in South Africa?
  25. It "weighs" two tons? by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    The rocket booster weighs two tons where? On Earth, the moon, space? I wonder how much the Earth weighs. Oh yeah, it's weightless, because it's in space.

    Submitter gets an 'F' for failing to understand basic physics.

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    1. Re:It "weighs" two tons? by Make · · Score: 1

      How ironic. You too fail to understand basic physics, because you don't seem to know that tons is not a unit of weight (neither does the editor/submitter).

    2. Re:It "weighs" two tons? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Mod parent +5 pedantic.

      In normal English we say something "weighs" two tons, rather than "masses" two tons.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re:It "weighs" two tons? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, he's the only one who gets it. If a thing weighs two tons on earth, its mass is two tons whether it's on earth, on the moon, or in microgravity.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    4. Re:It "weighs" two tons? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Depends on what kind of tons, doesn't it? After all, in English measurements, a "pound" is a unit of weight (not mass), and a "ton" is defined as exactly 2000 pounds. But then there's also the "metric ton" (or "tonne"), which of course is derived from the kilogram, and is a unit of mass.

  26. And an 'F' for the parent. by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    There's gravity in space as well you know, which is why the Earth still circles the Sun and the Moon still orbits us. Which means the Earth isn't weightless.

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    1. Re:And an 'F' for the parent. by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Gravity is just a theory.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:And an 'F' for the parent. by pant · · Score: 1

      Grandparent gets an F and parent gets a D-. The earth, sun and moon don't weigh anything, unless they are sitting on a scale. They do, however, have mass. Submitter gets a basic B because he was trying to relate the actual differences in an understandable way.

  27. Why Not LHC? by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Funny

    LHC isn't on the list for the simple reason that there was nothing to panic about.

    In 2009.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  28. No one has Global Warming on here either... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Global Warming is green-speak for 'Technology is bad - stop it!'

    You could see at Copenhagen that none of the Greens were interested in generating CO2-free energy, they wanted a tax on ALL energy. If this isn't the biggest technological scare, I don't know what is....

    1. Re:No one has Global Warming on here either... by delinear · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I kind of got the impression that "global warming" is political speak dressed up as green speak for "our economony is now almost entirely service based, the bottom has fallen out of the unsustainable credit market, what can we in the west sell to the emerging economic giants now that they have all the large industry... how about green technology?".

      Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but then back in the 80's I was saying that "nuclear is bad" was political speak dressed up as green speak for "big oil is good and cheap and currently abundant" and, in hindsight, if we'd built a ton of nuclear reactors back then the world would potentially be in a much better state today (no impending fuel crisis, potentially no big war in the middle east, no extra couple of decades of pumping pollutants directly into the skies, further development of nuclear technology allowing costs to decrease and making it more viable for emerging industrial countries, etc).

  29. Chris sardius by phanerus · · Score: 0

    Those are really small fears now, how about mobile phone radiations that are said to cause cancers and tumors ( we are discussing that on http://smsdam.com/ ) an asteroid rain with invading aliens and the 666 with the fallen angels that show up in human form.

  30. Wait..What!? by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

    First I was like.."Wow"...then I was "Oh Shit"...Then I was all "Phew"
    THEN I was like.."Wow"...then I was "Oh Shit"...Then I was all "Phew"
    THEN I was like.."Wow"...then I was "Oh Shit"...Then I was all "Phew"
    THEN I was like.."Wow"...then I was "Oh Shit"...Then I was all "Phew"
    THEN I was like.."Wow"...then I was "Oh Shit"...Then I was all "Phew"

    Dude, what a rollercoaster!

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
  31. batteries not included? by K10W · · Score: 1

    and the ever present risk of exploding lithium cells which many bang on about like it's a regular occurence.

  32. Sad comparison by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    73,477,000,000,000,000,000.00 (Moon weight in tons)
    00,000,012,162,748,511,374.98 (US Debt) ** Only 6 more decimal places to go! **

    I think it's sad that when I look at numbers referring to things like moon weight or number of stars in the galaxy that the first thing that comes to my mind is my countries national debt in relation to those numbers. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ -> $12,162,748,511,374.98 as of January 4th, 2010.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  33. laws of war? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... and desecration of the dead is against the laws of war -- and plant matter is a much better fuel source anyway ...

    The torturing of war prisoners of war in Iraq and the interviews with the involved army personal clearly showed that the US military have no clue about "laws of war". Several convicted US soldiers admitted frankly they never had heard about the convention of Geneva.

    angel'o'sphere

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  34. Please. by Zotdogg · · Score: 1

    Could we just have one fucking year where we don't have to dodge the "Top X of X for the year X" articles. Fuck me!