Funny that. As a sophomore in college (94-95?) I had a paper published on how graph analysis can be used for robot motion planning. As my example, I used OSCAR (Orbital Scrap Capture And Recovery) - a satellite equipped with a few robotic appendages for catching, disassembling and recycling space debris.
Anyway, my thinking was that letting all those refined metals burn up on re-entry was a huge waste. If instead, a booster or another large piece of scrap could be processed in orbit (focused solar light cutting torch or the electricity producing tether mentioned in another post) then these materials could be used to help construct the ISS. After all, at the huge per pound cost of lifting materials into orbit, and with so much of it already up there...
Now, certainly, the living components, computers, and things of this sort still need to be hoisted up, but much of the shielding materials and even some structural pieces could just be scavanged as they pass by. How many dead satellites up there still have usable solar panels, spare propellant, servicable tranceivers to use as backups or to be retrofitted onto probes... Shame to just let it all burn.
Most of the crap that's flying around up there is useless pain chips and items the size of a dime, but the big pieces ought to be slavaged (if a cost effective way can be developed) since they are made of 'space age' materials, and so expensive to manufacture.
That's what "Quicken" makes me think of. Highlander, the 'Quickening' (not the bad sequel but the idea from the original film). It (Quicken) doesn't seem like a good financial name at all. PC Teller would be better in my mind.
Anyway, GNUcash sounded like eCash first time I saw it. "What?? An open source electronic currency?? What will those zealot freaks think of next? A non-profit government?":)
Back when I was working my way through College as a retail clerk, I was told that the MICR #s used a special ink which made the numbers more visible to automated readers (i.e. the little box we fed the checks through for validation).
How accurate is this? Is the ink really magnetic/metalized for this purpose? If so, it may be a significant problem to home users. If, OTOH the recognition is purely optical, nevermind.:)
In any case, thanks for your efforts. I hope the right people take notice and include it in Gnu$$.
Re:What disappoints me...
on
Mattel Spyware
·
· Score: 1
So why do products like this keep appearing? I realize that just because something's unethical doesn't make it illegal, but still... it's dismaying, to say the least.
Ethics are a slippery eel. Reaching as far back as Aristotle (probably before), philosophical arguments have been made that if the intention behind the action is good, than the action is good. The easy example is that of hurting a child with an immunization needle, while doing what is good for the child. Most parental discipline falls in here too..
The point being, that if the people who developed the software did so with good intentions, is it really unethical? Yes, it can be abused, and it surely is abused once the Evil Marketting Types(tm) get their way. But, is there no justifiable, ethical reason for such a feature?
Obvious response "But they should tell us and let us opt out". Fair enough, but if what is being gathered is the sort of usage data that is 'influenced' if you know you're being observed?
Personally, I think that the Nielsen TV rating system would be much more effective if data was gathered from a variable, random sample of people who are unaware that their viewing preferences are being studied. Granted, there'd be nothing on but Springer and COPS, but it would at least accurately reflect the tastes of the population.
Keep in mind, I don't agree with clandestine monitoring in the least. I consider it unethical - and irrational, since knowing I am being watched would prompt me to act more like I want to then as I really do - so I would raise my standards of behaviour to those I'd like to project. Then again, that statement probably derives from the fact that I'm writing this from work, while I SHOULD be working.:)
Anyway, just some morning thoughts. Where's my coffee?
According to speculation by Buckminster Fuller (sorry, no link handy, do a search) and other visionaries, the Earth can easily support over 10 Billion humans, all living in relative luxury - the preventing factor is human nature, and some people NEEDING to be more 'equal' than others.
We have the technology to develop the technology necessary to populate the oceans, make the Sahara into an orchard, feed all the hungry and heal all the sick - but we're human, and until that changes, we'll never take adequate care of anyone but ourselves and those closest to us.
However, all it takes is one adequately large rock, and all this effort will be wasted. All 4 Billion years worth of it.
There was a beautiful soliloquy (sp?) on the subject in the first season of Babylon 5 - it sums up to say that eventually a natural cataclysm WILL claim the Earth (not MAY, but eventually WILL), and unless we, as a race, leave the cradle before this happens, all our history, evolution, and effort will be gone.
The aircraft units have had many resources spent to properly shield them not only from incoming RF (other than the GPS signals, of course), but also for outgoing IF re-transmission.
Not only that, but fortunes have been spent on certification of such shielding, and of reliability. A technologically identical unit that has not gone through the time and money consuming process of being certified is always cheaper. It can do the same exact job just as well, but it hasn't got a piece of paper to back it up.
30k feet is roughly 5 miles, right? My cell phone can't throw signal that far, in fact, all I have to do is be two miles or so from the nearest tower, and I drop service - much closer for the unfortunates with PCS service.
So it isn't about your "phone's sphere", but rather about the fact that your phone signal messes with sensitive, unshielded electronics of older planes.
As others have pointed out, the scary thing is that airlines are concerned that a 0.5Watt transmitter in a cell phone is enough to mess with a multi-million dollar plane carrying hundreds of people over cities filled with millions of people.
Should these things even be flying, now that we all know how 'sensitive' they are? These are pre-1990's planes, and flight-stress has been gnawing on them for a decade as it is. But, considering the money put into their development, and the fact that they fly over radio stations of all sorts, and within radio range of one another, and through lightning storms - should they not be more durable to weak radio transmissions than my car, for which the "car phone" was initially developed?
Shouldn't they all be retro-fitted with RF-tolerant wiring and equipment?
And are cell phones the cigarettes of the decade? They cause cancer, right?? What about 'second-hand radio emissions'? I'm sure some idiot who would use a hair-dryer in the shower, were it not for the warning label, will file a law suit within 5 years!
This has come up in discussion before, and I'm still curious as hell to see it in action.
As we currently get moderator previlege every once in a while, we should also get story moderation abilities. 5 points (personally I think there should be point fractions, more moderators and higher thresholds, in both post and story moderation but that's just me) to apply to the stories in the currently pending submission queue - those stories with the highest rating float to the top, and there are decided upon by the 'staff' - since some filtration MUST be done to avoid slander, blatant fraud and anything else that might pass by moderators (though with enough moderators, I doubt this would be an issue).
This would reduce the number of stories that the staffers have to wade through, and would more directly tailor the content of the site to what the 'public' wants to see. There is, of course, the risk of content degradation into only those subjects which people feel strongly about - rather than items of intellectual value or those neat little burried jewels that show up now and again - but the solution to this is developing a conservative method of granting story moderation points.
Similar rules could be applied as in posting moderation and in the selection of Interview questions - you MUST post a reason for or against a story you vote for or against, to give the staffers justification. You should also specify if a submission is worthy of a story, or should it be Quickie-fodder. Kuro5hin works this way - it seems a bit messy, since EVERYONE (logged in) gets to vote, so maybe only giving it to a few people at a time, like/. moderation would be an improvement.
Maybe story-moderation should only be available to posters who qualify for the +2 default score, or maybe only those with a Karma past some threshold. I know, there's a lot of pro and con Karma arguments already, but high Karma is a result of taking an active, positive part in the slashdot community, and who else better to help thresh the submission queue than the people who care about the content of the site?
Yeah, there's the whole Karma-whore issue, but I doubt it would result in abusive story moderation, since Karma whores value their Karma, and a Karmic penalty could be imposed against those who vote FOR stories that are decisively voted against by others (a bunch of Karma whores colluding together into a story brothel is unlikely) - besides, it would cost a point (or two) to get a story posted, so...
I propose Dogma points! Modelled after Karma, Dogma points are awarded when someone votes FOR a story you submit. They are revoked when your submission is moderated down or out of the queue. When your stories rating hits a certain level, the staff gives it the nod and the story gets posted. Queued stories have a finite life-span. If they are not moderated up enough, or down enough, they fall into the bit-bucket - a story limbo where they can be vieved (a'al archive) but not posted to.
As you accumulate Dogma points, you get to moderate stories with increased frequency - or maybe with more points. And perhaps, with enough points, you could even resurrect stories from Limbo - at a significant cost in Dogma points. If your points drop below a certain floor (0 is a good floor) then you can no longer vote for stories.
Perhaps a conversion of Karma to Dogma and vice versa should be explored? A 10 to 1 ratio seems fair.
Disclaimer: This humor does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either myself, my company, my friends, or my cat; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything; all rights reserved; this document is distribution copyrighted to the extent that you may distribute this posting and all its associated parts freely but you may not make a profit from it or include the posting in commercial publications without written permission from the copyright holder at the e-mail address above; further redistributions of this document or its parts are allowed via Usenet repostings, anonymous FTP, electronic transmissions, storage media, or printed copy as long as this notice is included and no monetary fee is charged; jokes are subject to change without notice; jokes are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental; hand wash only, drip dry; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; anchovies or jalapenos added to jokes upon request; your mileage may vary; no substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; quantities are limited while supplies last; this offer is void where prohibited; humor is provided "as is" without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities; not responsible for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity joke employer; no shoes, no shirt, no jokes; caveat emptor; read at your own risk; parental advisory: explicit lyrics; text may contain material some readers may find objectionable; keep away from pets and small children; these jokes are not a toy; limit one-per-family please; no money down; no purchase necessary; you need not be present to win; some assembly required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately; no preservatives added; jokes may have settled during shipment; sealed for your protection, do not use if safety seal is broken; safety goggles may be required during use; call before you dig; use only with proper ventilation; for external use only; if a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool dry place; keep away from open flames; do not place jokes near flammable or magnetic source; avoid inhaling fumes or contact with mucous membranes; smoking these jokes may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; joke text is made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were used to test the hilarity of these jokes; no salt, MSG, artificial color or flavor added; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult a humorologist; messages are ribbed for her pleasure; slippery when wet; must be 18 to enter; possible penalties for early withdrawal; one size fits all; joke offer valid only at participating sites; slightly higher west of the Rockies; allow four to six weeks for delivery; if defects are discovered, do not try to fix them yourself, but return to an authorized service center; disclaimer does not cover tornado, flood, hurricane, lightning, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, and other Acts of God, misuse, neglect, unauthorized repair, damage from improper installation, typos, misspelled words, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered signatures, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts, customer adjustments that are not covered in the warranty, and incidents owing to motor vehicle accidents, airplane crash, ship sinking, leaky roof, falling rocks, mud slides, forest fire, broken glass, flying projectiles, or dropping the item; other restrictions may apply. If something offends you, lighten up, get a life,and move on. Send all flames to/dev/null .
Now look at them lawyers, that's the way you do it You sue the whole net over the MP3 That ain't workin' that's the way you do it Music for nothin' and tunes for free No, that ain't legal, that's the way they do it Lemme tell ya them geeks ain't dumb Hit the Napster site to get a whole album Leach a few tracks using Gnutella
We gotta block all MP3.COM traffic Custom firewall.configs We gotta do it in the name of bandwidth We gotta stop those MP3s
See that CEO with the torn jeans and the T-shirt No buddy, he's no MBA That little punk kid has a million dollar web-site That little punk kid just went IPO
I shouldda learned to hack the TCP/IP stack I shouldda learned to rip CDs Look at Lars Ulrich, man! He's flipping off the camera Ugh! Metallica is losing fans fast Hey, who's there? What's that? Downloading noises? Filling up the next Gig cause the music's free That ain't legal? That's the way they do it Get their music for nothin' and your tunes for free
No, that aint' buying, that's the way we do it We listen to all our music as an MP3 It's not stealing, it's the new way to do it Music for nothing and your tunes for free Music for nothing, tunes for free Music for nothing, tunes for free
Apologies to Dire Straits. Full rights to reproduce granted exclusively to Weird Al Yankovic.:)
I came across this post while meta-moderating. I have had Katz articles permanently filtered (for several months now) on my preferences page, since this is the sort of comment I consistently felt compelled to post. I'm both reassured, and disturbed, that my chioce to filter Kats articles with extreme prejudice remains a good way of improving the quality of my life, and reducing the frustration therein. FWIW: I deemed the positive moderation to your post most fair indeed.
Antigravity would be a sensible word for something like a repulsive gravitational force, if something like that where to exist.
They don't really bother me at all, but I know several people who consider spiders, insects, and yes, even geckos very repulsive. So, that being the case, maybe wall-walkers CAN be considered anti-gravity powered.:)
Why are there brands and logos in the first place?
Because, anyone can make a T-shirt, but only Tommy Hilfiger can put his brand on his product.
Quality products stand out as 'quality', but someone somewhere can come up with a way to make a competing product a little more cheaply - and with nothing to differentiate products - except price, economies of scale can put otherwise good companies out of business - we've seen this before.
Brand marketting is running rampant, and it has gone too far. Once a company can produce a crappy product, slap their brand on it, and have that fact guarantee sales, it's gone too far. But who is to blame for this state of affairs if not the sheeple who buy something based on brand alone?
Brands have been used to assure the customer of quality. A graphical symbol, or an identifiable trademark name was always a brand (in cattle farming terms). It was the signature of a company - a company that had built a reputation in the market, on the quality of it's product.
If L.L.Bean is known for it's quality clothing, then you can be sure that an item of clothing with an L.L.Bean logo will stand up to abuse, so you're willing to buy it and even pay a little extra.
Things have gotten out of hand though. Brands with no reputation for quality, or excellent service, are dilluting the market, confusing ignorant customers - Consumer Reports is probably one of the best means to combat this, as are industry awards and trade publications (though once you accept advertising, your credibility goes out the window).
The major thing that is wrong with branding is that once a company earns a reputation, they feel they can fly on the virtues of the brand alone, and let the quiality of the product slide. A discerning customer will get burned once or twice, and then jump ship, and commit to a competitor. But an uninformed customer, with more dollars than sense, will feed the brand beastie, and encourage further cost-cutting (sweat-shops, low quality, short product life).
This is a huge issue that includes production costing by region, economies of scale which play into shipping and manufacturing siting, planned obsolescence... Too big for this forum, really.
The point is, there is nothing wrong with brands. They identify a company. They speak for the companys reputation and reputability, and the quality of the product and the business practices behind the product. In our personal/consumer dealings with companies, we've all had certain experiances with different companies and brands.
If we associate the brand with our experience, and there is repeatability in that experience, then brands are a good thing.
We just need to remember to keep our experience of the brand SEPARATE from the propaganda that the brand spews out into the media about itself. 'Truth in adverising' is an oxymoron - no one would say a bad thing about themselves in a million dollar Super-Bowl advert. But once we've been burned by a Nike product, or choose to take exception to their treatment of their employees (even though this keeps their stuff cheaper than it would otherwise be) than this is what the brand stands for in our minds, and this is it's reputation.
What matters much is the polarity of the storm. IANA{astro-meteorolgist}, but I recall from a Discovery/Learning Channel show that a solar storm can be north or south polarized.
If it's in-line with Earth's magnetic field, it tends to just flow around the planet without causing any major issues,
If it's counter to our natural shielding, it causes spectacular light shows, messes with RF communication, disrupts electrical flow in the power grids (sags, spikes, outages), fries satellites, plays havoc with air traffic control and on-board aircraft systems, and causes people at high altitudes in the north polar regions (Canada and up) to see Yeti, Bigfoot and Elvis.
I absolutely do NOT think that all the different paradigms have been exhausted, not by a long shot.
But, in dealing with computers, we're constantly faced with levels of abstraction, and on one level or another, we've hit rock bottom.
If you consider that a computer has a CPU, storage and I/O facilities - we'll how much past that can we innovate? Systems programming is pretty low on the totem pole of abstractions. We have things like deadlock and starvation to contend with, we have paging and swapping and thrashing and thunking to consider. We have semaphores and mutexes... On such a low level, we've covered most of the bases, really.
EDO RAM was pretty innovative, but it's below the systems level, it's firmware/hardware, and so Mr. Pike doesn't have anything to say about it.
M$ attempts to fuse the browser into the OS can be (I don't agree) be seen as innovative, since this would make the Internet just another type of I/O; just an extension of the file system - much like the hard disk was way back in history...
This extension of the file system is more related to your previous argument about the 64bit journaling FS than any other sort of innovation, so we can discount it from the list. But I don't think that either the net or a 64bit JFS would make Pike's list of innovations; they're just variations on the I/O theme.
Cybernetic implants directly into the human nervous system as an extension of I/O would not be innovative on the systems programming level of abstraction - though they would be revolutionary in terms of biomechanics and neurology. After all, systems programmers have already had to deal with the issues of different bus encodings and non-deterministic latency and variable bandwidth. Whether we deal with a PCI-SCSI bridge, or a FibreChannel-Optic Nerve bridge makes little difference from their perspective.
Point being, we're arguing the same side of the issue - there's lot's out there left to do, but on close and low-level inspection, there isn't. But then there can't really be, can there?
As I'd said before, the wheel hasn't really changed much since it's invention thousands of years ago. It was pretty damn innovative to use it on carts, and cars, and also on steamboats and to generate power from running rivers. By comparison to those innovations, putting a wheel on a Mars rover is drab and droll, and not a bit innovative.
There's one more truly innovative thing that's recently been done in systems programing: Beowulf.
There are plenty more too - many of them don't fit into Pike's sphere of reference as 'systems programming', but they are, like beowulf, optical switching, multi-processor synchronization, distributed computing... The fields are mutating, and what Pike doesn't see as 'systems level' is that, and networking, and application level, and human perception.
Is native CPU support for multimedia considered a 'systems' innovation? MMX, 3DNow? How about OpenGL? That's systems programming too, if you think about it, and squint a little. All that's needed is a tilt of the head, and the level of abstraction changes.
Pike made a bad call. He's bitter that he's no longer a rising star, but rather a 'former glory' who is seen as being on a snipe hunt. His latest OS hasn't made any inroads outside of his R&D facilities, and he's not happy. If Plan9 isn't popular, maybe it's not the sort of innovation that's viable - the world doesn't need spherical wheels either - except in some obscure environments, like a research lab.
Being facetious... So is EVERYTHING we do as a species, isn't it?
The whole point of everything we do, from throwing rocks at rabbits to e-Commerce, is about survival and procreation.
A journaling file system is still a file system - nothing new there. 64 bits is an extension to the 32 bit deal we're used to. Are you saying that if it's not revolutionary, it isn't an innovation? Please, just about everything we have now can be traced beckwards, down an evolutionary path, in tiny little increments of development.
I think Mr. Pike is/was a revolutionary when the world changed really rapidly. I think this comes across in his statement. (If you have a handy PS reader for NT, please send it my way, I'll be glad to read the article -- truly innovative of Mr. Pike to send out his treatise on the lack of innovation in an old, and non-ubiquitous format)
I'm sure Ben Franklin would be devastated by the lack of innovation shown in our current government - well, that's a poor point, as what HE had was probably much better than what we have now.
There still are flashes of brilliance in the industry, they are just few, and if they can not show immediate profitability, they are squelched by their funding managers. It's a pitty.
Where was Pike when the Web caught fire? Where was he when PalmOS and the Palm devices exploded? Where is he as cable internet touches more homes each day? Networking has become so huge a function of the OS as to be considered a "systems level" function. Yeah, the bright guys of yesterday came up with the routing algorighms back then, but IP6 is still something that's looming, and implementing it in the backbones is DEFINITELLY system level work.
There's plenty of innovation happenning in the world - I think the issue is that Mr. Pike isn't the one doing it - Where's OS9 from outer space anyway?
Pike's hidden point seems to be that UNIX (as a concept) hasn't changed much over the years. So what? So a few guys in the 70's hit the nail on the head.
Is distributed.net not innovative? Is it not systems programming?
You can't tell me that BeOS is not INNOVATIVE on the SYSTEMS RESEARCH level.
Want another word? How's Crusoe? The Crusoe *systems software*, by what it does, is probably the most innovative thing out there right now.
Innovation, lets not forget, is the application of existing inventions to solve new problems. Innovation is not invention.
The wheel hasn't changed much in the last several thousand years either.
Re:Really Clever?? Are you kidding?
on
Gnutella VBS Worm
·
· Score: 1
Careful now, there have been some infamous online discussions about the origins of AIDS, and HIV's apparent preferrence for certain subsets of society..
Ignorance, thankfully, can be cured with education. Stupidity and arrogance on the other hand...
Besides, getting rid of the 'stupid' would just raise the bar of 'average' higher.:)
WARNING, CAUTION, DANGER, AND BEWARE! Gullibility Virus Spreading over the Internet!
WASHINGTON, D.C.--The Institute for the Investigation of Irregular Internet Phenomena announced today that many Internet users are becoming infected by a new virus that causes them to believe without question every groundless story, legend, and dire warning that shows up in their inbox or on their browser. The Gullibility Virus, as it is called, apparently makes people believe and forward copies of silly hoaxes relating to cookie recipes, email viruses, taxes on modems, and get-rich-quick schemes.
"These are not just readers of tabloids or people who buy lottery tickets based on fortune cookie numbers," a spokesman said. "Most are otherwise normal people, who would laugh at the same stories if told to them by a stranger on a street corner." However, once these same people become infected with the Gullibility Virus, they believe anything they read on the Internet. "My immunity to tall tales and bizarre claims is all gone," reported one weeping victim. "I believe every warning message and sick child story my friends forward to me, even though most of the messages are anonymous."
Another victim, now in remission, added, "When I first heard about Good Times, I just accepted it without question. After all, there were dozens of other recipients on the mail header, so I thought the virus must be true." It was a long time, the victim said, before she could stand up at a Hoaxees Anonymous meeting and state, "My name is Jane, and I've been hoaxed." Now, however, she is spreading the word. "Challenge and check whatever you read," she says. Internet users are urged to examine themselves for symptoms of the virus, which include the following: The willingness to believe improbable stories without thinking. The urge to forward multiple copies of such stories to others. A lack of desire to take three minutes to check to see if a story is true.
T. C. is an example of someone recently infected. He told one reporter, "I read on the Net that the major ingredient in almost all shampoos makes your hair fall out, so I've stopped using shampoo." When told about the Gullibility Virus, T. C. said he would stop reading email, so that he would not become infected. Anyone with symptoms like these is urged to seek help immediately.
Experts recommend that at the first feelings of gullibility, Internet users rush to their favorite search engine and look up the item tempting them to thoughtless credence. Most hoaxes, legends, and tall tales have been widely discussed and exposed by the Internet community. Courses in critical thinking are also widely available, and there is online help from many sources, including
Department of Energy Computer Incident Advisory Capability at http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACHoaxes.html
Symantec Anti Virus Research Center at http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/index.html
McAfee Associates Virus Hoax List at http://www.mcafee.com/support/hoax.html
Dr. Solomons Hoax Page at http://www.drsolomons.com/vircen/hoax.html
The Urban Legends Web Site at http://www.urbanlegends.com
Urban Legends Reference Pages at http://www.snopes.com
Datafellows Hoax Warnings at http://www.Europe.Datafellows.com/news/hoax.htm
Those people who are still symptom free can help inoculate themselves against the Gullibility Virus by reading some good material on evaluating sources, such as
Evaluating Internet Research Sources at http://www.sccu.edu/faculty/R_Harris/evalu8it.ht m
Evaluation of Information Sources at http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~agsmith/evaln/evaln.htm
Bibliography on Evaluating Internet Resources at http://refserver.lib.vt.edu/libinst/critTHINK.HT M
Lastly, as a public service, Internet users can help stamp out the Gullibility Virus by sending copies of this message to anyone who forwards them a hoax. This message is so important, you should be sending it anonymously! Forward it to all your friends right away! Don't think about it! This is not a chain letter! This story is true! Don't check it out! This story is so timely, there is no date on it! This story is so important, we're using lots of exclamation points! Lots!! For every message you forward to some unsuspecting person, the Home for the Hopelessly Gullible will donate ten cents to itself. (If you wonder how we will know you are forwarding these messages all over creation, you're obviously thinking too much.)
Here, take this dirty syringe, full of unidentified liquid, and inject yourself with it... Done? I just infected you with a virus! Hahahaha!
How is it 'really clever' to prey on the ignorance - and stupidity at this point - of people?
The only thing that sets this trojan apart from those of 'days long gone' is the speed with which it can spread, and the trojan does nothing about that. It's the network, and the fact that it is populated by less and less technologically versed users, that makes this (and things like this) a threat.
Let's thank the gods that the dangerous biological viruses, like Ebola, Magdeburg and a host of others, are relatively confined to the extremes of civilized society. If they were placed in the human anaolg of the Internet (Times Square on New Years Eve, or O'Hare Airport on a major holiday weekend, for example) we'd be done by now.
Let's be thankful that all our virtual Times Square has to deal with is some dirty needles, and clueless newbies who insist on sticking themselves in the arse with them.
The original statement seems to confuse, or rather fuse, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (as you point out) and Schroedinger's Cat experiment.
In the cat experiment, a cat was placed in a sealed box, with a poisonous device (cyanide vial, IIRC). The device was trippable by a collision with a particle, which could either occur, or not. Actually the device would be tripped if a particle existed in the box or not - same net effect, different hypothesis.
Anyway, without openning the box, we didn't know if the particle appeared and collided, or not - so the cat was simultaneously alive and dead. The point of the experiment (IIRC again, it's been years) was do show that a particle could either exist or not, and we couldn't tell, except by observing the consequences of the probability - or something like that.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not surprised. I know several people from upstate NY, and most of them are pretty dense.
(duck, run, hide)
Those fine institutions in Rochester and Troy excepted of course.. Heh.
Funny that. As a sophomore in college (94-95?) I had a paper published on how graph analysis can be used for robot motion planning. As my example, I used OSCAR (Orbital Scrap Capture And Recovery) - a satellite equipped with a few robotic appendages for catching, disassembling and recycling space debris.
Anyway, my thinking was that letting all those refined metals burn up on re-entry was a huge waste. If instead, a booster or another large piece of scrap could be processed in orbit (focused solar light cutting torch or the electricity producing tether mentioned in another post) then these materials could be used to help construct the ISS. After all, at the huge per pound cost of lifting materials into orbit, and with so much of it already up there...
Now, certainly, the living components, computers, and things of this sort still need to be hoisted up, but much of the shielding materials and even some structural pieces could just be scavanged as they pass by. How many dead satellites up there still have usable solar panels, spare propellant, servicable tranceivers to use as backups or to be retrofitted onto probes... Shame to just let it all burn.
Most of the crap that's flying around up there is useless pain chips and items the size of a dime, but the big pieces ought to be slavaged (if a cost effective way can be developed) since they are made of 'space age' materials, and so expensive to manufacture.
That's what "Quicken" makes me think of. Highlander, the 'Quickening' (not the bad sequel but the idea from the original film). It (Quicken) doesn't seem like a good financial name at all. PC Teller would be better in my mind.
:)
Anyway, GNUcash sounded like eCash first time I saw it. "What?? An open source electronic currency?? What will those zealot freaks think of next? A non-profit government?"
Back when I was working my way through College as a retail clerk, I was told that the MICR #s used a special ink which made the numbers more visible to automated readers (i.e. the little box we fed the checks through for validation).
:)
How accurate is this? Is the ink really magnetic/metalized for this purpose? If so, it may be a significant problem to home users. If, OTOH the recognition is purely optical, nevermind.
In any case, thanks for your efforts. I hope the right people take notice and include it in Gnu$$.
So why do products like this keep appearing? I realize that just because something's unethical doesn't make it illegal, but still... it's dismaying, to say the least.
:)
Ethics are a slippery eel. Reaching as far back as Aristotle (probably before), philosophical arguments have been made that if the intention behind the action is good, than the action is good. The easy example is that of hurting a child with an immunization needle, while doing what is good for the child. Most parental discipline falls in here too..
The point being, that if the people who developed the software did so with good intentions, is it really unethical? Yes, it can be abused, and it surely is abused once the Evil Marketting Types(tm) get their way. But, is there no justifiable, ethical reason for such a feature?
Obvious response "But they should tell us and let us opt out". Fair enough, but if what is being gathered is the sort of usage data that is 'influenced' if you know you're being observed?
Personally, I think that the Nielsen TV rating system would be much more effective if data was gathered from a variable, random sample of people who are unaware that their viewing preferences are being studied. Granted, there'd be nothing on but Springer and COPS, but it would at least accurately reflect the tastes of the population.
Keep in mind, I don't agree with clandestine monitoring in the least. I consider it unethical - and irrational, since knowing I am being watched would prompt me to act more like I want to then as I really do - so I would raise my standards of behaviour to those I'd like to project. Then again, that statement probably derives from the fact that I'm writing this from work, while I SHOULD be working.
Anyway, just some morning thoughts. Where's my coffee?
According to speculation by Buckminster Fuller (sorry, no link handy, do a search) and other visionaries, the Earth can easily support over 10 Billion humans, all living in relative luxury - the preventing factor is human nature, and some people NEEDING to be more 'equal' than others.
We have the technology to develop the technology necessary to populate the oceans, make the Sahara into an orchard, feed all the hungry and heal all the sick - but we're human, and until that changes, we'll never take adequate care of anyone but ourselves and those closest to us.
However, all it takes is one adequately large rock, and all this effort will be wasted. All 4 Billion years worth of it.
There was a beautiful soliloquy (sp?) on the subject in the first season of Babylon 5 - it sums up to say that eventually a natural cataclysm WILL claim the Earth (not MAY, but eventually WILL), and unless we, as a race, leave the cradle before this happens, all our history, evolution, and effort will be gone.
The aircraft units have had many resources spent to properly shield them not only from incoming RF (other than the GPS signals, of course), but also for outgoing IF re-transmission.
:)
Not only that, but fortunes have been spent on certification of such shielding, and of reliability. A technologically identical unit that has not gone through the time and money consuming process of being certified is always cheaper. It can do the same exact job just as well, but it hasn't got a piece of paper to back it up.
Sort of like a diploma, eh?
30k feet is roughly 5 miles, right? My cell phone can't throw signal that far, in fact, all I have to do is be two miles or so from the nearest tower, and I drop service - much closer for the unfortunates with PCS service.
So it isn't about your "phone's sphere", but rather about the fact that your phone signal messes with sensitive, unshielded electronics of older planes.
As others have pointed out, the scary thing is that airlines are concerned that a 0.5Watt transmitter in a cell phone is enough to mess with a multi-million dollar plane carrying hundreds of people over cities filled with millions of people.
Should these things even be flying, now that we all know how 'sensitive' they are? These are pre-1990's planes, and flight-stress has been gnawing on them for a decade as it is. But, considering the money put into their development, and the fact that they fly over radio stations of all sorts, and within radio range of one another, and through lightning storms - should they not be more durable to weak radio transmissions than my car, for which the "car phone" was initially developed?
Shouldn't they all be retro-fitted with RF-tolerant wiring and equipment?
And are cell phones the cigarettes of the decade? They cause cancer, right?? What about 'second-hand radio emissions'? I'm sure some idiot who would use a hair-dryer in the shower, were it not for the warning label, will file a law suit within 5 years!
This has come up in discussion before, and I'm still curious as hell to see it in action.
/. moderation would be an improvement.
As we currently get moderator previlege every once in a while, we should also get story moderation abilities. 5 points (personally I think there should be point fractions, more moderators and higher thresholds, in both post and story moderation but that's just me) to apply to the stories in the currently pending submission queue - those stories with the highest rating float to the top, and there are decided upon by the 'staff' - since some filtration MUST be done to avoid slander, blatant fraud and anything else that might pass by moderators (though with enough moderators, I doubt this would be an issue).
This would reduce the number of stories that the staffers have to wade through, and would more directly tailor the content of the site to what the 'public' wants to see. There is, of course, the risk of content degradation into only those subjects which people feel strongly about - rather than items of intellectual value or those neat little burried jewels that show up now and again - but the solution to this is developing a conservative method of granting story moderation points.
Similar rules could be applied as in posting moderation and in the selection of Interview questions - you MUST post a reason for or against a story you vote for or against, to give the staffers justification. You should also specify if a submission is worthy of a story, or should it be Quickie-fodder. Kuro5hin works this way - it seems a bit messy, since EVERYONE (logged in) gets to vote, so maybe only giving it to a few people at a time, like
Maybe story-moderation should only be available to posters who qualify for the +2 default score, or maybe only those with a Karma past some threshold. I know, there's a lot of pro and con Karma arguments already, but high Karma is a result of taking an active, positive part in the slashdot community, and who else better to help thresh the submission queue than the people who care about the content of the site?
Yeah, there's the whole Karma-whore issue, but I doubt it would result in abusive story moderation, since Karma whores value their Karma, and a Karmic penalty could be imposed against those who vote FOR stories that are decisively voted against by others (a bunch of Karma whores colluding together into a story brothel is unlikely) - besides, it would cost a point (or two) to get a story posted, so...
I propose Dogma points! Modelled after Karma, Dogma points are awarded when someone votes FOR a story you submit. They are revoked when your submission is moderated down or out of the queue. When your stories rating hits a certain level, the staff gives it the nod and the story gets posted.
Queued stories have a finite life-span. If they are not moderated up enough, or down enough, they fall into the bit-bucket - a story limbo where they can be vieved (a'al archive) but not posted to.
As you accumulate Dogma points, you get to moderate stories with increased frequency - or maybe with more points. And perhaps, with enough points, you could even resurrect stories from Limbo - at a significant cost in Dogma points. If your points drop below a certain floor (0 is a good floor) then you can no longer vote for stories.
Perhaps a conversion of Karma to Dogma and vice versa should be explored? A 10 to 1 ratio seems fair.
Anyway - just a few thoughts.
The Disclaimer
Message Mental Nutritional Information= ==================== = =====================
/dev/null .
Serving Size: 1 message Servings Per Container: 1
===============================================
Amount Per Serving:
Ideas: 34
Original Ideas: 12
Ideas Stolen From Fatheads: 22
===============================================
Total Information: 43
Saturated Information: 27 (24 %RDA)
Unsaturated Information: 16 (16 %RDA)
Useful Information: 0 (0 %RDA)
Fiber Content: 5 g (3 %RDA) (a)
Total Comic Content: 29
Chuckles: 24 (5 %RDA)
Belly Laughs: 1 (34 %RDA)
Parodies: 3 (73 %RDA)
Puns: 1 (100 %RDA)
(a): Only if printed out and eaten.
Disclaimer: This humor does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either myself, my company, my friends, or my cat; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything; all rights reserved; this document is distribution copyrighted to the extent that you may distribute this posting and all its associated parts freely but you may not make a profit from it or include the posting in commercial publications without written permission from the copyright holder at the e-mail address above; further redistributions of this document or its parts are allowed via Usenet repostings, anonymous FTP, electronic transmissions, storage media, or printed copy as long as this notice is included and no monetary fee is charged; jokes are subject to change without notice; jokes are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental; hand wash only, drip dry; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; anchovies or jalapenos added to jokes upon request; your mileage may vary; no substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; quantities are limited while supplies last; this offer is void where prohibited; humor is provided "as is" without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities; not responsible for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity joke employer; no shoes, no shirt, no jokes; caveat emptor; read at your own risk; parental advisory: explicit lyrics; text may contain material some readers may find objectionable; keep away from pets and small children; these jokes are not a toy; limit one-per-family please; no money down; no purchase necessary; you need not be present to win; some assembly required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately; no preservatives added; jokes may have settled during shipment; sealed for your protection, do not use if safety seal is broken; safety goggles may be required during use; call before you dig; use only with proper ventilation; for external use only; if a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool dry place; keep away from open flames; do not place jokes near flammable or magnetic source; avoid inhaling fumes or contact with mucous membranes; smoking these jokes may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; joke text is made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were used to test the hilarity of these jokes; no salt, MSG, artificial color or flavor added; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult a humorologist; messages are ribbed for her pleasure; slippery when wet; must be 18 to enter; possible penalties for early withdrawal; one size fits all; joke offer valid only at participating sites; slightly higher west of the Rockies; allow four to six weeks for delivery; if defects are discovered, do not try to fix them yourself, but return to an authorized service center; disclaimer does not cover tornado, flood, hurricane, lightning, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, and other Acts of God, misuse, neglect, unauthorized repair, damage from improper installation, typos, misspelled words, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered signatures, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts, customer adjustments that are not covered in the warranty, and incidents owing to motor vehicle accidents, airplane crash, ship sinking, leaky roof, falling rocks, mud slides, forest fire, broken glass, flying projectiles, or dropping the item; other restrictions may apply. If something offends you, lighten up, get a life,and move on. Send all flames to
Point 1 says: Whatever 'features' I develop, must be handed over to the company.
Point 3 says: I may not use any handed over 'features' they choose not to include in future versions.
Am I reading that right??
Now look at them lawyers, that's the way you do it
.configs
:)
You sue the whole net over the MP3
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Music for nothin' and tunes for free
No, that ain't legal, that's the way they do it
Lemme tell ya them geeks ain't dumb
Hit the Napster site to get a whole album
Leach a few tracks using Gnutella
We gotta block all MP3.COM traffic
Custom firewall
We gotta do it in the name of bandwidth
We gotta stop those MP3s
See that CEO with the torn jeans and the T-shirt
No buddy, he's no MBA
That little punk kid has a million dollar web-site
That little punk kid just went IPO
I shouldda learned to hack the TCP/IP stack
I shouldda learned to rip CDs
Look at Lars Ulrich, man! He's flipping off the camera
Ugh! Metallica is losing fans fast
Hey, who's there? What's that? Downloading noises?
Filling up the next Gig cause the music's free
That ain't legal? That's the way they do it
Get their music for nothin' and your tunes for free
No, that aint' buying, that's the way we do it
We listen to all our music as an MP3
It's not stealing, it's the new way to do it
Music for nothing and your tunes for free
Music for nothing, tunes for free
Music for nothing, tunes for free
Apologies to Dire Straits.
Full rights to reproduce granted exclusively to Weird Al Yankovic.
I came across this post while meta-moderating.
I have had Katz articles permanently filtered (for several months now) on my preferences page, since this is the sort of comment I consistently felt compelled to post. I'm both reassured, and disturbed, that my chioce to filter Kats articles with extreme prejudice remains a good way of improving the quality of my life, and reducing the frustration therein.
FWIW: I deemed the positive moderation to your post most fair indeed.
Antigravity would be a sensible word for something like a repulsive gravitational force, if something like that where to exist.
:)
They don't really bother me at all, but I know several people who consider spiders, insects, and yes, even geckos very repulsive. So, that being the case, maybe wall-walkers CAN be considered anti-gravity powered.
Why are there brands and logos in the first place?
Because, anyone can make a T-shirt, but only Tommy Hilfiger can put his brand on his product.
Quality products stand out as 'quality', but someone somewhere can come up with a way to make a competing product a little more cheaply - and with nothing to differentiate products - except price, economies of scale can put otherwise good companies out of business - we've seen this before.
Brand marketting is running rampant, and it has gone too far. Once a company can produce a crappy product, slap their brand on it, and have that fact guarantee sales, it's gone too far. But who is to blame for this state of affairs if not the sheeple who buy something based on brand alone?
Brands have been used to assure the customer of quality. A graphical symbol, or an identifiable trademark name was always a brand (in cattle farming terms). It was the signature of a company - a company that had built a reputation in the market, on the quality of it's product.
If L.L.Bean is known for it's quality clothing, then you can be sure that an item of clothing with an L.L.Bean logo will stand up to abuse, so you're willing to buy it and even pay a little extra.
Things have gotten out of hand though. Brands with no reputation for quality, or excellent service, are dilluting the market, confusing ignorant customers - Consumer Reports is probably one of the best means to combat this, as are industry awards and trade publications (though once you accept advertising, your credibility goes out the window).
The major thing that is wrong with branding is that once a company earns a reputation, they feel they can fly on the virtues of the brand alone, and let the quiality of the product slide. A discerning customer will get burned once or twice, and then jump ship, and commit to a competitor. But an uninformed customer, with more dollars than sense, will feed the brand beastie, and encourage further cost-cutting (sweat-shops, low quality, short product life).
This is a huge issue that includes production costing by region, economies of scale which play into shipping and manufacturing siting, planned obsolescence... Too big for this forum, really.
The point is, there is nothing wrong with brands. They identify a company. They speak for the companys reputation and reputability, and the quality of the product and the business practices behind the product. In our personal/consumer dealings with companies, we've all had certain experiances with different companies and brands.
If we associate the brand with our experience, and there is repeatability in that experience, then brands are a good thing.
We just need to remember to keep our experience of the brand SEPARATE from the propaganda that the brand spews out into the media about itself. 'Truth in adverising' is an oxymoron - no one would say a bad thing about themselves in a million dollar Super-Bowl advert. But once we've been burned by a Nike product, or choose to take exception to their treatment of their employees (even though this keeps their stuff cheaper than it would otherwise be) than this is what the brand stands for in our minds, and this is it's reputation.
Cavet Emptor, as always.
What matters much is the polarity of the storm. IANA{astro-meteorolgist}, but I recall from a Discovery/Learning Channel show that a solar storm can be north or south polarized.
If it's in-line with Earth's magnetic field, it tends to just flow around the planet without causing any major issues,
If it's counter to our natural shielding, it causes spectacular light shows, messes with RF communication, disrupts electrical flow in the power grids (sags, spikes, outages), fries satellites, plays havoc with air traffic control and on-board aircraft systems, and causes people at high altitudes in the north polar regions (Canada and up) to see Yeti, Bigfoot and Elvis.
I absolutely do NOT think that all the different paradigms have been exhausted, not by a long shot.
But, in dealing with computers, we're constantly faced with levels of abstraction, and on one level or another, we've hit rock bottom.
If you consider that a computer has a CPU, storage and I/O facilities - we'll how much past that can we innovate? Systems programming is pretty low on the totem pole of abstractions. We have things like deadlock and starvation to contend with, we have paging and swapping and thrashing and thunking to consider. We have semaphores and mutexes... On such a low level, we've covered most of the bases, really.
EDO RAM was pretty innovative, but it's below the systems level, it's firmware/hardware, and so Mr. Pike doesn't have anything to say about it.
M$ attempts to fuse the browser into the OS can be (I don't agree) be seen as innovative, since this would make the Internet just another type of I/O; just an extension of the file system - much like the hard disk was way back in history...
This extension of the file system is more related to your previous argument about the 64bit journaling FS than any other sort of innovation, so we can discount it from the list. But I don't think that either the net or a 64bit JFS would make Pike's list of innovations; they're just variations on the I/O theme.
Cybernetic implants directly into the human nervous system as an extension of I/O would not be innovative on the systems programming level of abstraction - though they would be revolutionary in terms of biomechanics and neurology. After all, systems programmers have already had to deal with the issues of different bus encodings and non-deterministic latency and variable bandwidth. Whether we deal with a PCI-SCSI bridge, or a FibreChannel-Optic Nerve bridge makes little difference from their perspective.
Point being, we're arguing the same side of the issue - there's lot's out there left to do, but on close and low-level inspection, there isn't. But then there can't really be, can there?
As I'd said before, the wheel hasn't really changed much since it's invention thousands of years ago. It was pretty damn innovative to use it on carts, and cars, and also on steamboats and to generate power from running rivers. By comparison to those innovations, putting a wheel on a Mars rover is drab and droll, and not a bit innovative.
There's one more truly innovative thing that's recently been done in systems programing: Beowulf.
There are plenty more too - many of them don't fit into Pike's sphere of reference as 'systems programming', but they are, like beowulf, optical switching, multi-processor synchronization, distributed computing... The fields are mutating, and what Pike doesn't see as 'systems level' is that, and networking, and application level, and human perception.
Is native CPU support for multimedia considered a 'systems' innovation? MMX, 3DNow? How about OpenGL? That's systems programming too, if you think about it, and squint a little. All that's needed is a tilt of the head, and the level of abstraction changes.
Pike made a bad call. He's bitter that he's no longer a rising star, but rather a 'former glory' who is seen as being on a snipe hunt. His latest OS hasn't made any inroads outside of his R&D facilities, and he's not happy. If Plan9 isn't popular, maybe it's not the sort of innovation that's viable - the world doesn't need spherical wheels either - except in some obscure environments, like a research lab.
Being facetious... So is EVERYTHING we do as a species, isn't it?
The whole point of everything we do, from throwing rocks at rabbits to e-Commerce, is about survival and procreation.
A journaling file system is still a file system - nothing new there. 64 bits is an extension to the 32 bit deal we're used to. Are you saying that if it's not revolutionary, it isn't an innovation? Please, just about everything we have now can be traced beckwards, down an evolutionary path, in tiny little increments of development.
I think Mr. Pike is/was a revolutionary when the world changed really rapidly. I think this comes across in his statement. (If you have a handy PS reader for NT, please send it my way, I'll be glad to read the article -- truly innovative of Mr. Pike to send out his treatise on the lack of innovation in an old, and non-ubiquitous format)
I'm sure Ben Franklin would be devastated by the lack of innovation shown in our current government - well, that's a poor point, as what HE had was probably much better than what we have now.
There still are flashes of brilliance in the industry, they are just few, and if they can not show immediate profitability, they are squelched by their funding managers. It's a pitty.
Where was Pike when the Web caught fire? Where was he when PalmOS and the Palm devices exploded? Where is he as cable internet touches more homes each day? Networking has become so huge a function of the OS as to be considered a "systems level" function. Yeah, the bright guys of yesterday came up with the routing algorighms back then, but IP6 is still something that's looming, and implementing it in the backbones is DEFINITELLY system level work.
There's plenty of innovation happenning in the world - I think the issue is that Mr. Pike isn't the one doing it - Where's OS9 from outer space anyway?
Pike's hidden point seems to be that UNIX (as a concept) hasn't changed much over the years. So what? So a few guys in the 70's hit the nail on the head.
Is distributed.net not innovative? Is it not systems programming?
BeOS
You can't tell me that BeOS is not INNOVATIVE on the SYSTEMS RESEARCH level.
Want another word? How's Crusoe? The Crusoe *systems software*, by what it does, is probably the most innovative thing out there right now.
Innovation, lets not forget, is the application of existing inventions to solve new problems. Innovation is not invention.
The wheel hasn't changed much in the last several thousand years either.
Careful now, there have been some infamous online discussions about the origins of AIDS, and HIV's apparent preferrence for certain subsets of society..
:)
Ignorance, thankfully, can be cured with education. Stupidity and arrogance on the other hand...
Besides, getting rid of the 'stupid' would just raise the bar of 'average' higher.
WARNING, CAUTION, DANGER, AND BEWARE!
t m
T M
Gullibility Virus Spreading over the Internet!
WASHINGTON, D.C.--The Institute for the Investigation of Irregular Internet Phenomena announced today that many Internet users are becoming infected by a new virus that causes them to believe without question every groundless story, legend, and dire warning that shows up in their inbox or on their browser. The Gullibility Virus, as it is called, apparently makes people believe and forward copies of silly hoaxes relating to cookie recipes, email viruses, taxes on modems, and get-rich-quick schemes.
"These are not just readers of tabloids or people who buy lottery tickets based on fortune cookie numbers," a spokesman said. "Most are otherwise normal people, who would laugh at the same stories if told to them by a stranger on a street corner." However, once these same people become infected with the Gullibility Virus, they believe anything they read on the Internet. "My immunity to tall tales and bizarre claims is all gone," reported one weeping victim. "I believe every warning message and sick child story my friends forward to me, even though most of the messages are anonymous."
Another victim, now in remission, added, "When I first heard about Good Times, I just accepted it without question. After all, there were dozens of other recipients on the mail header, so I thought the virus must be true." It was a long time, the victim said, before she could stand up at a Hoaxees Anonymous meeting and state, "My name is Jane, and I've been hoaxed." Now, however, she is spreading the word. "Challenge and check whatever you read," she says. Internet users are urged to examine themselves for symptoms of the virus, which include the following: The willingness to believe improbable stories without thinking. The urge to forward multiple copies of such stories to others. A lack of desire to take three minutes to check to see if a story is true.
T. C. is an example of someone recently infected. He told one reporter, "I read on the Net that the major ingredient in almost all shampoos makes your hair fall out, so I've stopped using shampoo." When told about the Gullibility Virus, T. C. said he would stop reading email, so that he would not become infected. Anyone with symptoms like these is urged to seek help immediately.
Experts recommend that at the first feelings of gullibility, Internet users rush to their favorite search engine and look up the item tempting them to thoughtless credence. Most hoaxes, legends, and tall tales have been widely discussed and exposed by the Internet community. Courses in critical thinking are also widely available, and there is online help from many sources, including
Department of Energy Computer Incident Advisory Capability at http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACHoaxes.html
Symantec Anti Virus Research Center at
http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/index.html
McAfee Associates Virus Hoax List at
http://www.mcafee.com/support/hoax.html
Dr. Solomons Hoax Page at
http://www.drsolomons.com/vircen/hoax.html
The Urban Legends Web Site at
http://www.urbanlegends.com
Urban Legends Reference Pages at
http://www.snopes.com
Datafellows Hoax Warnings at
http://www.Europe.Datafellows.com/news/hoax.htm
Those people who are still symptom free can help inoculate themselves against the Gullibility Virus by reading some good material on evaluating sources, such as
Evaluating Internet Research Sources at
http://www.sccu.edu/faculty/R_Harris/evalu8it.h
Evaluation of Information Sources at
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/~agsmith/evaln/evaln.htm
Bibliography on Evaluating Internet Resources at
http://refserver.lib.vt.edu/libinst/critTHINK.H
Lastly, as a public service, Internet users can help stamp out the Gullibility Virus by sending copies of this message to anyone who forwards them a hoax. This message is so important, you should be sending it anonymously! Forward it to all your friends right away! Don't think about it! This is not a chain letter! This story is true! Don't check it out! This story is so timely, there is no date on it! This story is so important, we're using lots of exclamation points! Lots!! For every message you forward to some unsuspecting person, the Home for the Hopelessly Gullible will donate ten cents to itself. (If you wonder how we will know you are forwarding these messages all over creation, you're obviously thinking too much.)
Here, take this dirty syringe, full of unidentified liquid, and inject yourself with it... Done? I just infected you with a virus! Hahahaha!
How is it 'really clever' to prey on the ignorance - and stupidity at this point - of people?
The only thing that sets this trojan apart from those of 'days long gone' is the speed with which it can spread, and the trojan does nothing about that. It's the network, and the fact that it is populated by less and less technologically versed users, that makes this (and things like this) a threat.
Let's thank the gods that the dangerous biological viruses, like Ebola, Magdeburg and a host of others, are relatively confined to the extremes of civilized society. If they were placed in the human anaolg of the Internet (Times Square on New Years Eve, or O'Hare Airport on a major holiday weekend, for example) we'd be done by now.
Let's be thankful that all our virtual Times Square has to deal with is some dirty needles, and clueless newbies who insist on sticking themselves in the arse with them.
I have developed a simple test to check your virus and computer IQ. You get enterred into a drawing for a $1000 bill, just for entering.
To take the test, press Alt+F4, now.
IANA{applicable expertise}
:)
The original statement seems to confuse, or rather fuse, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (as you point out) and Schroedinger's Cat experiment.
In the cat experiment, a cat was placed in a sealed box, with a poisonous device (cyanide vial, IIRC). The device was trippable by a collision with a particle, which could either occur, or not. Actually the device would be tripped if a particle existed in the box or not - same net effect, different hypothesis.
Anyway, without openning the box, we didn't know if the particle appeared and collided, or not - so the cat was simultaneously alive and dead. The point of the experiment (IIRC again, it's been years) was do show that a particle could either exist or not, and we couldn't tell, except by observing the consequences of the probability - or something like that.