This is very, very, VERY bad. People do not realize how sensitive our coral reefs are to even the most minor climate change, and how coral reefs are the most bio-diverse areas on the planet. We are only just now beginning to understand some of the complex symbiotic relationships that exist in these precious areas.
It's in all likelihood that studying the behavior of all these organisms will result in great leaps in medical and bioscience, but these resources are likely to disappear before we recognize their importance.
It will be a suitable epitaph for humanity I guess.
... before putting too much stock in tree-hugger predictions.:)
I take it your definition of a tree hugger or a wacko is someone who's an expert in their field and has studied most of their lives to specialize in certain subjects and speaks of those subjects.
Wheras what? Some dumbass formulaic writer who has no real skills beyond schmoozing the hollywood elite, and an opinion on everything but experience in virtually nothing is more qualified to speak?
Has it not occurred to people that this whole lawsuit is nothing more than a trick to allow SCO shareholders to make huge bucks dumping their stock before the whole company implodes?
How is this whole debacle any different than the plethora of over-hyped "dot-coms" that exploded with large claims, made a few people rich, and screwed over everyone else?
This whole deal is one huge PR-fueled stock scam. I feel sorry for anyone who is actually buying SCO stock that the executives and legal team are dumping... but what's worse is it very well may be US, with corrupt fund managers fueling this overblown stock. People should pay attention to what's keeping this stock higher than it should be, and if unbeknownst to us, some of the holdings in our IRAs are loaded with this crap.
Most of the failed tech companies had doomed business models in the first place. Rather than plan for a conservative, common-sense approach, they opted for the "whore model" where they gave out products and services at a loss, thinking that at some point they would later get customers to pay. Even companies like Amazon.com, that has whored itself out and hemmoraged money since day one, with substantive market share, still can't quite figure out how to turn things around so the company is on solid ground.
There are still a lot of solid, tech companies that are growing, but these are companies that didn't dine on the magic mushrooms being handed out by VCs and other people who were only in it for the short-term payoff at the expense of shareholders, the greedy public and their common sensibilities.
As the owner of a successful "dot com", I deal with customers every day who wonder why I don't charge "whore" prices for hosting and other services. And they wonder why their cheap-ass services blink on and off or the company they've chosen isn't around a few months later? It used to be that businesses were afraid of dealing with small Internet companies for fear they wouldn't be around or would leave them hanging. Now it's the other way around: they don't trust the big companies, and rightly so!
With all those personalized credit cards they have now. If you're a pet owner you can get a Yorkshire Terrier picture on your credit card; scuba divers have their DAN credit cards, etc. I think Citibank should come out with the "Terrorist VISA" card, perhaps with a picture of Saddam or Osama on it, maybe a burning US flag or something. Of course, all the terrorists will apply for the new Citibank Terrorist VISA and then we'll know exactly who they are!
That's all fine and dandy but the problem with the Libertarians is that they do not have a realistic plan for running the country. They have this idealistic notion involving minimizing governmental power and control, but you start asking the Libertarian candidates how they'll handle situations that need to be mandated on a national level (pollution & environmental, business monopolization, utility regulation, transportation, etc.) they give you a bunch of double-talk that indicates they have no plan, nor a solid idea of what they're doing. Libertarians, for the most part, have a very narrow, unrealistic agenda that while most Americans seem to find appealing, would end up creating unworkable policy that would make the country even worse.
Anyone want to take bets on how well the new SP2 will coexist with other software? What happens to your Symantec, Popup blocker, Google toolbar, Mcaffee, Zonelarm or other software after SP2 is installed? Is it going to make your machine crash and burn? I'm sure Microsoft has throughly tested the possibility that some of the new security features they're implementing might be redundant on some user's machines already... right? I'm sure they wouldn't destroy the functionality of non-Microsoft third party software customers have paid for and/or preinstalled on the system right?? Muhahahhahahahaha
Over 40% of the computer users in the world use XP, and most have no trouble with Blaster or random spywares, or indeed security hacks.
Are those statistics that you've magically pulled out of your ass and therefore authoritative? Pardon us.
Every single person I know who has run Windows has been hit by some malicious worm or virus which exploited a vulnerability in the system. My own personal experience begs to argue with your apprently authoritative claim of the details of everyone else on the planet who is running Windows XP.
I am obviously a minority who was unlucky enough to have clients and friends who also were atypical I guess. And this is even after me warning everyone to patch-patch-patch and never click on attachments.
Overall, its long past due that Microsoft focus on security instead of whizz-bang features
Since when has Microsoft done either??
Microsoft is reacting to the overwhelming failure of its operating system to provide even a moderate level of security! Microsoft is reacting to the proliferation of the community's knowledge and understanding that there are more secure, more stable alternatives (thanks to Linux and FreeBSD/OSX).
What "whiz bang" features are you referring to? Popup blocking? Again, this is a three year old technology that Microsoft has tried its best to not implement but is only grudgingly deploying because other products like the Google Toolbar have proven to be incredibly valuable and desireable by the community and its encroached into Microsoft's attempt to hijack the Internet's searching system.
The only thing Microsoft focuses on are continued ways to milk more money from the dominant market position they have in the industry.
I agree this is an issue, but we brought the system online on a VPN through a firewall that had most ports blocked, so there was little chance of any infection, but you do bring up a good point for those who might be going through this mess and didn't take precautions.
By the way, have you ever tried to patch-from-start a stock Win XP system? That's a nightmare in itself. It looks like Microsoft didn't really check out how well this would work. When we brought the system up there were 46 critical patches, and it took another hour to figure out the proper order in which to apply patches (which was NOT chronological) in order to even get Windows Update to complete. What a mess!
A friend brought by a computer the other day to have me "fix" it - of course it was riddled with pop-ups and worms, and had about 3 dozen autorun programs that took over the whole system. We backed up critical files and then re-installed Win XP Home. A basic install of XP took about 3 hours, then I had to remove some of Microsoft's spyware. Then we decided to install Norton Internet Security 2004 on the machine. In the middle of the install, Symantec's program hung up, and we couldn't remove it, if was half-way installed and took the computer's neworking capability down with it. The only clean solution was to reformat and reinstall Win XP over again. Due to the nature of Windows, there is no easy way to clean up the system once it gets screwed up, and this is the final straw for me relating to Symantic software. I will NEVER use their crap again. We've constantly had problems. I wish I could bill them for the wasted time due to their crappy software.
PLEASE stop thinking that the NY Post is a newspaper. It is a tabloid, nothing more.
As opposed to what? I have a hard time identifying much distinction in journalistic integrity among any of the major newspapers and television networks. Maybe in the old days your argument mattered.
There will likely continue to be an increase in crime due to several factors, such as increasing poverty because of neoliberal economic policies, and also due to importation of poverty from 3rd world, which also lowers wages.
Judgeting from your diatribe, it appears the importation of 3rd world, mind altering substances is also on the rise.
I think we were all surprised that one of these crosslinked pundit proclaimations was actually well thought out. A refreshing change. Still I'd like to comment on some things from the article:
* There won't be a huge internet-busting data-destroying worm or virus, because virus writers appear to have moved past that stage of simple, wilful destruction. Any of the viruses which appeared in the past year could have wiped hard disks clean once they'd propagated; they didn't. That suggests that, as in real life, where very few primary infections kill their hosts, the writers of "malware" have realised that destructive programs have shorter lives.
I disagree. And it all depends upon what one considers "destruction". The age of worm/virus destruction, especially in terms of security, commerce and privacy hasn't even begun yet. I still think that worm and virus development is in an infantcy stage. What we've seen thus far are little more than experimental forays into testing propagation techniques and sophmoric cyber protests. The ability to launch an exponentially-propagating set of code across billions of computers is too enticing to not begin to be explored on a more insideous (i.e. "commercial") level.
Sooner or later, we're going to get hit with something huge. It may not explode in a singular, destructive event like the remedial worms of the past, but it will likely be much more damaging in a less attention-getting manner. Look for the proliferation of worm-based secret proxies and information gathering tools. Look for spammers being the driving force behind the development of this technology, which will then be repurposed for even more nasty political and economic terrorism.
* There will be more viruses and worms that silently exploit holes in Microsoft Windows for criminal motives - such as passing on credit card details and bank passwords. These are the offspring of virus writers hired by organised crime.
I agree, as I said before, but I'll go one step further and identify "organized crime" as spammers, who will incubate this new technology which will then be used by terrorists.
* Legal music downloading stores will arrive properly, spurred by the arrival in Europe in the spring of Apple's iTunes Music Store, which will galvanise people with iPods (of whom there are a lot). Those people have ignored existing online stores because their iPod can't play the Windows Media format used by most operations.
I'm going to go against the grain on this one. I really do not think, unless the music and media industry fundamentally change from their current soulless, formulaic model of pushing unimaginative crap upon the public, that any of the current music-selling business models will be anything more than a fad. I believe the success of iTunes has more to do with boredom than it does innovation and the public's ever-increasing short attention span is going to nuke this industry, probably as soon as this year.
* Picture phones will become pervasive; it'll be unusual not to have one.
Hello? 1960? Are you there? Even now the camera-equipped cell phones are goofy and more annoying than they are practical. I have a hard enough time wanting to answer the phone in person. Hell if I'm going to be sending video at the same time. This will never happen in the next 5+ years, if ever.
* "PVRs" - which store TV programmes on a hard disk - will become more widely available at lower prices. They will compete head-on with DVD recorders, which have the advantage of permanence but the disadvantage of the cost of the disks. With hard disk capacity doubling for a given price, it'll be hard for DVD recorders to compete.
Now you're talking. This is going to be THE singular, huge tech goliath that shakes the modern couch-potato world. But its effect will manifest itself differently than what you predict IMO.
I would qualify this more by saying products like TIVO will be the big, HUGE hit
I completely agree. Even so WebTV was never a "tech failure". It was the most successful "internet appliance" ever introduced, and many people who would never have gotten a computer at the time were introduced to the Internet and computing via WebTV.
You're right, Microsoft killed WebTV. It was never because the platform wasn't useful. It was my consensus that WebTV was the vehicle Microsoft intended to use to establish a monopolistic-type e-commerce platform on top of the Internet. One of WebTV's flaws, of not supporting SSL, or conditionally supporting e-commerce exclusively for Microsoft-approved merchants was engineered by MS and created big problems with the success of WebTV, which of course, could have been easily fixed with some software updates.
However, as to deterrence: it's never guaranteed, and regardless of how many were deterred by Mitnick's punishment, servers I administrate are bombarded by root kits and the like CONSTANTLY
I administer servers and deal with the same thing. However I believe that if there weren't a few examples made of those who break the laws in this respect, things would be much worst, which is why spamming is much worse that it would likely be if Ralsky was in prison and the bitch of Bubba.
You don't believe enforcement is a deterrent, why aren't you a thief or a murderer? (and pardon me if I assume you are not)
Perfect analogy. Mitnick's motivation means nothing in this context. His punishment served as an example to hackers which was, promptly, ignored.
That's a totally ridiculous statement that is unproveable. Before Mitnick, there weren't many examples of action taken against those in the hacking community. It is without any doubt, a certainty among anyone with common sense that his incarceration deterred many would-be crackers.
More importantly, the motivations of hackers/crackers and spammers are a lot different, so I still maintain it's not a good analogy. Spammers are motivated by materialism and criminal penalties are the anthesis of their desires, much moreso than crackers. You're foolish if you think Mitnick's incarceration didn't send ripples through the community scaring people - there's numerous evidence to support that, and a few spammers in prison would have an exponentially more substantive effect in that field.
Everything "forks". That doesn't take away from the value that the community can garner from such a system. An SMTP whitelist, even one formally-sanctioned would likely spawn clones. That still doesn't mean that the best won't rise to the top or that control would be lost. Look at the Linux kernel. Look at the TLD system. Look at eBay. You can have competition and still have an authoritative leader in any field.
It's all in the rules. If you designate simple rules and procedures, it would work. There is a potential for abuse and mismanagement in virtually every system on the planet, but that's no excuse to say it won't work because more systems work than don't.
Isn't it funny how humans are so uncomfortable with the unknown? We assume this is a hoax because we do not understand it. Because (generally speaking, as a populace) we cannot accept the fact that there may be things beyond our understanding?
At the same time, we have a plethora of even more illogical constructs, the most obvious of which are spiritual and religion-related. We have a tangible document in front of us, which we don't understand so we are compelled to discredit it, yet we are surrounded by even more vaporous spiritual concepts that so many accept as real.
It seems to be a testimonial to our wholly self-absorbed nature that if we cannot identify "what's in it for us" out of any of these concepts, then they're either evil or bogus.
Slashdot Mirror
This is very, very, VERY bad. People do not realize how sensitive our coral reefs are to even the most minor climate change, and how coral reefs are the most bio-diverse areas on the planet. We are only just now beginning to understand some of the complex symbiotic relationships that exist in these precious areas.
It's in all likelihood that studying the behavior of all these organisms will result in great leaps in medical and bioscience, but these resources are likely to disappear before we recognize their importance.
It will be a suitable epitaph for humanity I guess.
It's very passe to think more than 15 minutes ahead into the future. Get with the program old man.
... before putting too much stock in tree-hugger predictions. :)
I take it your definition of a tree hugger or a wacko is someone who's an expert in their field and has studied most of their lives to specialize in certain subjects and speaks of those subjects.
Wheras what? Some dumbass formulaic writer who has no real skills beyond schmoozing the hollywood elite, and an opinion on everything but experience in virtually nothing is more qualified to speak?
I bet you have a bumper sticker on your SUV that says Shit Happens don't ya?
Has it not occurred to people that this whole lawsuit is nothing more than a trick to allow SCO shareholders to make huge bucks dumping their stock before the whole company implodes?
How is this whole debacle any different than the plethora of over-hyped "dot-coms" that exploded with large claims, made a few people rich, and screwed over everyone else?
This whole deal is one huge PR-fueled stock scam. I feel sorry for anyone who is actually buying SCO stock that the executives and legal team are dumping... but what's worse is it very well may be US, with corrupt fund managers fueling this overblown stock. People should pay attention to what's keeping this stock higher than it should be, and if unbeknownst to us, some of the holdings in our IRAs are loaded with this crap.
Most of the failed tech companies had doomed business models in the first place. Rather than plan for a conservative, common-sense approach, they opted for the "whore model" where they gave out products and services at a loss, thinking that at some point they would later get customers to pay. Even companies like Amazon.com, that has whored itself out and hemmoraged money since day one, with substantive market share, still can't quite figure out how to turn things around so the company is on solid ground.
There are still a lot of solid, tech companies that are growing, but these are companies that didn't dine on the magic mushrooms being handed out by VCs and other people who were only in it for the short-term payoff at the expense of shareholders, the greedy public and their common sensibilities.
As the owner of a successful "dot com", I deal with customers every day who wonder why I don't charge "whore" prices for hosting and other services. And they wonder why their cheap-ass services blink on and off or the company they've chosen isn't around a few months later? It used to be that businesses were afraid of dealing with small Internet companies for fear they wouldn't be around or would leave them hanging. Now it's the other way around: they don't trust the big companies, and rightly so!
With all those personalized credit cards they have now. If you're a pet owner you can get a Yorkshire Terrier picture on your credit card; scuba divers have their DAN credit cards, etc. I think Citibank should come out with the "Terrorist VISA" card, perhaps with a picture of Saddam or Osama on it, maybe a burning US flag or something. Of course, all the terrorists will apply for the new Citibank Terrorist VISA and then we'll know exactly who they are!
That's all fine and dandy but the problem with the Libertarians is that they do not have a realistic plan for running the country. They have this idealistic notion involving minimizing governmental power and control, but you start asking the Libertarian candidates how they'll handle situations that need to be mandated on a national level (pollution & environmental, business monopolization, utility regulation, transportation, etc.) they give you a bunch of double-talk that indicates they have no plan, nor a solid idea of what they're doing. Libertarians, for the most part, have a very narrow, unrealistic agenda that while most Americans seem to find appealing, would end up creating unworkable policy that would make the country even worse.
Anyone want to take bets on how well the new SP2 will coexist with other software? What happens to your Symantec, Popup blocker, Google toolbar, Mcaffee, Zonelarm or other software after SP2 is installed? Is it going to make your machine crash and burn? I'm sure Microsoft has throughly tested the possibility that some of the new security features they're implementing might be redundant on some user's machines already... right? I'm sure they wouldn't destroy the functionality of non-Microsoft third party software customers have paid for and/or preinstalled on the system right?? Muhahahhahahahaha
Over 40% of the computer users in the world use XP, and most have no trouble with Blaster or random spywares, or indeed security hacks.
Are those statistics that you've magically pulled out of your ass and therefore authoritative? Pardon us.
Every single person I know who has run Windows has been hit by some malicious worm or virus which exploited a vulnerability in the system. My own personal experience begs to argue with your apprently authoritative claim of the details of everyone else on the planet who is running Windows XP.
I am obviously a minority who was unlucky enough to have clients and friends who also were atypical I guess. And this is even after me warning everyone to patch-patch-patch and never click on attachments.
Overall, its long past due that Microsoft focus on security instead of whizz-bang features
Since when has Microsoft done either??
Microsoft is reacting to the overwhelming failure of its operating system to provide even a moderate level of security! Microsoft is reacting to the proliferation of the community's knowledge and understanding that there are more secure, more stable alternatives (thanks to Linux and FreeBSD/OSX).
What "whiz bang" features are you referring to? Popup blocking? Again, this is a three year old technology that Microsoft has tried its best to not implement but is only grudgingly deploying because other products like the Google Toolbar have proven to be incredibly valuable and desireable by the community and its encroached into Microsoft's attempt to hijack the Internet's searching system.
The only thing Microsoft focuses on are continued ways to milk more money from the dominant market position they have in the industry.
There's a really nice deaf couple that lives there that cannot understand why they got such a great deal on their new property.
I agree this is an issue, but we brought the system online on a VPN through a firewall that had most ports blocked, so there was little chance of any infection, but you do bring up a good point for those who might be going through this mess and didn't take precautions.
By the way, have you ever tried to patch-from-start a stock Win XP system? That's a nightmare in itself. It looks like Microsoft didn't really check out how well this would work. When we brought the system up there were 46 critical patches, and it took another hour to figure out the proper order in which to apply patches (which was NOT chronological) in order to even get Windows Update to complete. What a mess!
A friend brought by a computer the other day to have me "fix" it - of course it was riddled with pop-ups and worms, and had about 3 dozen autorun programs that took over the whole system. We backed up critical files and then re-installed Win XP Home. A basic install of XP took about 3 hours, then I had to remove some of Microsoft's spyware. Then we decided to install Norton Internet Security 2004 on the machine. In the middle of the install, Symantec's program hung up, and we couldn't remove it, if was half-way installed and took the computer's neworking capability down with it. The only clean solution was to reformat and reinstall Win XP over again. Due to the nature of Windows, there is no easy way to clean up the system once it gets screwed up, and this is the final straw for me relating to Symantic software. I will NEVER use their crap again. We've constantly had problems. I wish I could bill them for the wasted time due to their crappy software.
PLEASE stop thinking that the NY Post is a newspaper. It is a tabloid, nothing more.
As opposed to what? I have a hard time identifying much distinction in journalistic integrity among any of the major newspapers and television networks. Maybe in the old days your argument mattered.
We know he wasn't an English teacher!
There will likely continue to be an increase in crime due to several factors, such as increasing poverty because of neoliberal economic policies, and also due to importation of poverty from 3rd world, which also lowers wages.
Judgeting from your diatribe, it appears the importation of 3rd world, mind altering substances is also on the rise.
I think we were all surprised that one of these crosslinked pundit proclaimations was actually well thought out. A refreshing change. Still I'd like to comment on some things from the article:
* There won't be a huge internet-busting data-destroying worm or virus, because virus writers appear to have moved past that stage of simple, wilful destruction. Any of the viruses which appeared in the past year could have wiped hard disks clean once they'd propagated; they didn't. That suggests that, as in real life, where very few primary infections kill their hosts, the writers of "malware" have realised that destructive programs have shorter lives.
I disagree. And it all depends upon what one considers "destruction". The age of worm/virus destruction, especially in terms of security, commerce and privacy hasn't even begun yet. I still think that worm and virus development is in an infantcy stage. What we've seen thus far are little more than experimental forays into testing propagation techniques and sophmoric cyber protests. The ability to launch an exponentially-propagating set of code across billions of computers is too enticing to not begin to be explored on a more insideous (i.e. "commercial") level.
Sooner or later, we're going to get hit with something huge. It may not explode in a singular, destructive event like the remedial worms of the past, but it will likely be much more damaging in a less attention-getting manner. Look for the proliferation of worm-based secret proxies and information gathering tools. Look for spammers being the driving force behind the development of this technology, which will then be repurposed for even more nasty political and economic terrorism.
* There will be more viruses and worms that silently exploit holes in Microsoft Windows for criminal motives - such as passing on credit card details and bank passwords. These are the offspring of virus writers hired by organised crime.
I agree, as I said before, but I'll go one step further and identify "organized crime" as spammers, who will incubate this new technology which will then be used by terrorists.
* Legal music downloading stores will arrive properly, spurred by the arrival in Europe in the spring of Apple's iTunes Music Store, which will galvanise people with iPods (of whom there are a lot). Those people have ignored existing online stores because their iPod can't play the Windows Media format used by most operations.
I'm going to go against the grain on this one. I really do not think, unless the music and media industry fundamentally change from their current soulless, formulaic model of pushing unimaginative crap upon the public, that any of the current music-selling business models will be anything more than a fad. I believe the success of iTunes has more to do with boredom than it does innovation and the public's ever-increasing short attention span is going to nuke this industry, probably as soon as this year.
* Picture phones will become pervasive; it'll be unusual not to have one.
Hello? 1960? Are you there? Even now the camera-equipped cell phones are goofy and more annoying than they are practical. I have a hard enough time wanting to answer the phone in person. Hell if I'm going to be sending video at the same time. This will never happen in the next 5+ years, if ever.
* "PVRs" - which store TV programmes on a hard disk - will become more widely available at lower prices. They will compete head-on with DVD recorders, which have the advantage of permanence but the disadvantage of the cost of the disks. With hard disk capacity doubling for a given price, it'll be hard for DVD recorders to compete.
Now you're talking. This is going to be THE singular, huge tech goliath that shakes the modern couch-potato world. But its effect will manifest itself differently than what you predict IMO.
I would qualify this more by saying products like TIVO will be the big, HUGE hit
I completely agree. Even so WebTV was never a "tech failure". It was the most successful "internet appliance" ever introduced, and many people who would never have gotten a computer at the time were introduced to the Internet and computing via WebTV.
You're right, Microsoft killed WebTV. It was never because the platform wasn't useful. It was my consensus that WebTV was the vehicle Microsoft intended to use to establish a monopolistic-type e-commerce platform on top of the Internet. One of WebTV's flaws, of not supporting SSL, or conditionally supporting e-commerce exclusively for Microsoft-approved merchants was engineered by MS and created big problems with the success of WebTV, which of course, could have been easily fixed with some software updates.
However, as to deterrence: it's never guaranteed, and regardless of how many were deterred by Mitnick's punishment, servers I administrate are bombarded by root kits and the like CONSTANTLY
I administer servers and deal with the same thing. However I believe that if there weren't a few examples made of those who break the laws in this respect, things would be much worst, which is why spamming is much worse that it would likely be if Ralsky was in prison and the bitch of Bubba.
You don't believe enforcement is a deterrent, why aren't you a thief or a murderer? (and pardon me if I assume you are not)
You are a stupid bonehead. Stop propagating that dumbass political propaganda!
Perfect analogy. Mitnick's motivation means nothing in this context. His punishment served as an example to hackers which was, promptly, ignored.
That's a totally ridiculous statement that is unproveable. Before Mitnick, there weren't many examples of action taken against those in the hacking community. It is without any doubt, a certainty among anyone with common sense that his incarceration deterred many would-be crackers.
More importantly, the motivations of hackers/crackers and spammers are a lot different, so I still maintain it's not a good analogy. Spammers are motivated by materialism and criminal penalties are the anthesis of their desires, much moreso than crackers. You're foolish if you think Mitnick's incarceration didn't send ripples through the community scaring people - there's numerous evidence to support that, and a few spammers in prison would have an exponentially more substantive effect in that field.
Everything "forks". That doesn't take away from the value that the community can garner from such a system. An SMTP whitelist, even one formally-sanctioned would likely spawn clones. That still doesn't mean that the best won't rise to the top or that control would be lost. Look at the Linux kernel. Look at the TLD system. Look at eBay. You can have competition and still have an authoritative leader in any field.
It's all in the rules. If you designate simple rules and procedures, it would work. There is a potential for abuse and mismanagement in virtually every system on the planet, but that's no excuse to say it won't work because more systems work than don't.
It's worth noting that the scientific efforts to create an equally misunderstood manuscript prove absolutely nothing.
We can now create diamonds in a lab. That in no way implies that's the only way diamonds are created does it?
Isn't it funny how humans are so uncomfortable with the unknown? We assume this is a hoax because we do not understand it. Because (generally speaking, as a populace) we cannot accept the fact that there may be things beyond our understanding?
At the same time, we have a plethora of even more illogical constructs, the most obvious of which are spiritual and religion-related. We have a tangible document in front of us, which we don't understand so we are compelled to discredit it, yet we are surrounded by even more vaporous spiritual concepts that so many accept as real.
It seems to be a testimonial to our wholly self-absorbed nature that if we cannot identify "what's in it for us" out of any of these concepts, then they're either evil or bogus.