My opinion: Fire Carly Fiorina! She can't make money for the company without being adversarial for customers. When a company treats its customers badly to try to make more money, that is an indication that the CEO is desperate.
Reworded: "Where are our anti-trust laws when we need them?" The U.S. government is so corrupt that there is no chance there will be any government involvement. A government that kills other people just because a few people want that certainly will not be influenced by laws.
HP inkjets aren't competitive, anyway, so don't buy them. In my experience, they've been having terrible problems with their printer management programs.
However, recognize that it was copied from an earlier discussion on Slashdot, and it is valuable to see the entire discussion. You might not otherwise click on the link at the bottom, which references that earlier discussion.
And, I should say SqLite is very impressive for many of the small uses of databases, or places where people should use databases, and haven't because of the complexity of the other ones.
For lite uses, and many heavy ones, SQLite seems excellent. I haven't used it
yet, but whoever writes for the project is an excellent communicator.
In my experience, most open source projects, and almost all commercial
products, have a (maybe mostly unconscious) plan: "We will carefully measure
how much hassle people will accept, and make sure we don't document anything
more than enough to just barely keep people from rejecting us."
It's common to visit an open source project and find that, yes, they
have a new version, but the manual is two years old. There are plenty of
commericial projects that are the same way, like Netgear's FVS318.
Their reference manual is for version 1.4, but the latest version is 2.4.
An advantage of open source projects is that they are usually far more
honest than commercial projects. I love this from the PostgreSQL What's New page:
"Although tested throughout our release cycle, the Windows port does not
have the benefit of years of use in production environments that PostgreSQL
has on Unix platforms and therefore should be treated with the same level of
caution as you would a new product." Marketing people are generally so
dishonest that they would not allow an honest statement like this.
MySQL is a non-standard implementation
of SQL. That's a problem that's probably partly caused by not doing good
documentation. If they had documented everything as they wrote MySQL, they
might have seen what a mess they were making. Bad documentation obscures
programming messes.
Consider one thing: when you examine the information, you will see that BroadVoice is the best. It's easy. BroadVoice provides Free Calls, as in "you don't have to pay a per-minute charge to other countries".
Yes, it is shilling, but it is also an excellent service to consider. No, I don't work for them. What I don't like is a recommendation that is not the best.
From the story: "... the calculated scores don't carry much weight as they award AT&T's CallVantage the Editor's Choice and four other services strangely tie for second place."
My opinion: Be very careful about anything you see in PC Magazine. My experience is that generally the ratings are paid ads. Generally, I have found, they know the winner in advance, and pick contenders that they can rate lower.
Here's evidence: Can you find a better VOIP service than BroadVoice? (NOTE: Not BroadVox.) Why didn't PC Magazine rate that company?
It seemed to me that there was a time when PC Magazine began selling their ratings, and in the years after that the Magazine became much smaller very quickly.
Other fake comparisons on the Internet:
1) Telephone calling cards,
2) Price comparison web sites. The comparisons are just ways of convincing you to pay more. It always seems that the apparently completely honest Froogle shows lower prices.
Here's a quote from the new paper to which you linked: "Difficulties in replication can often be traced to some crucial difference in experimental protocol that effectively undermines the fidelity of the intended replication. Thus the reason why it has not been possible to replicate some experiments is precisely because they have not actually been replicated!"
Now there's an entire weasel paragraph!
Until someone can replicate the experiments, it is not considered experimental science. That's why we no longer take cold fusion seriously. No amount of weasel verbiage has the slightest possibility of changing the way people do real science.
The author of that paper is all over the map. He makes Dr. Henry Lai look like a tower of propriety.
He has apparently collected all the hypotheses he could find in one paper. Amazing: Groups of cells resonating with microwave frequencies! The human body demodulating radio signals and responding to the demodulated signal!
If someone could demonstrate truth in either of those, he or she would definitely be a candidate for a Nobel Prize.
I don't want to spend the time responding to everything in that paper. But the purpose is clear. He is attacking an area where he believes he will get the most attention. Cell phones causing damage is a hot topic among foggy-minded people now. A more intellectually honest person would consider other sources of electromagnetic radiation: 1) Airplanes with radar flying overhead, 2) 50,000 watt AM and FM radio and TV stations (4 different frequency bands), 3) Airport radar, 4) Cordless phones, 5) The neighbor next door and his 1,000 watt amateur radio transmitter, 6) Billions of high energy particles entering the atmosphere and ionizing air molecules, which then spray gamma rays everywhere. 7) CB radios.
Isn't it odd that biological processes respond specifically to GSM signals?
Maybe forty years ago, there was great concern for a while about living near a radio or TV station.
Everything I've written here is just my present opinion, and not well-researched and edited enough to be more than a Slashdot comment.
I study these kinds of things a lot, and my opinion is that the kind of lying that Dr. Lai did in the paper you mentioned originally is typical for someone exhibiting one of the worst elements of the Chinese culture, and very unscientific.
The first sentence is, "The mechanisms by which an electromagnetic field (EMF) influences biological material are poorly understood." That's somewhat honest. A truly honest sentence would read, "The mechanisms by which an electromagnetic field (EMF) influences chemical reactions are poorly understood", because there is nothing specific about the reaction of the processes of biological chemistry to electromagnetic fields. The same effects occur in non-biological reactions.
Apparently none of the papers like this one propose anything that they claim is specific to the chemistry of biological processes. The papers allow and encourage readers to believe that there is a special connection between biology and electromagnetic fields only to make the work seem more important.
The next sentence of the abstract is, "One potentially important model suggests that a magnetic field can stabilize free radicals in such a way as to permit their dispersement rather than their return to the ground state (Okazaki et al., 1988; Scaiano, 1995)." I don't have access to either of those papers, but my guess from a quick Google search is that Okazaki's paper might be entirely reasonable science. The problem is that there is no honest relationship between this paper and the one by Okazaki being cited. The paper to which I've linked is what is commonly known as "junk science".
That paper, which I picked at random from a quick Google search on the term "milliTesla", goes on to say, "We have tested this hypothesis by examining.... They are certainly not testing any such hypothesis, or they are testing it in a very, very weak way.
The reason these papers study a "60 Hz sinusoidal field" is because that's what you get when you plug the power that comes out of the wall into a coil of wire. The most noticeable effect is not that an alternating magnetic field is generated, but that the coil gets hot. Maybe the genetic breakage is caused the scaring the rat. Maybe he thinks he is being cooked.
Few of the people who work in scientific fields are actually scientists. More than 50%, and many true scientists say more than 90%, are just lab tinkerers.
This is the distinction: Good science is theory-guided. Junk science is not theory-guided, but just tries something in hopes that it will reveal something else. Any "theories" junk scientists have typically hang disconnected like a fly trapped in Jello. True science builds further knowledge on a strong foundation of what is already verified.
The problem with Henry Lai's paper "Magnetic-Field-Induced DNA Strand Breaks in Brain Cells of the Rat" is that, while it is interesting to know that magnetic fields have effects on chemical compounds, the paper takes advantage of an opportunity for social fraud. Many of the grant-givers don't have much scientific knowledge. The grant-givers give grants based on their perception of the importance of the work, and this paper takes advantage of their ignorance by allowing the grant-givers to believe something that is false.
The falsehood is that magnetic fields affect genetic material in some special way that only can be studied in genetic mat
Possibly I didn't express myself clearly enough before. Interaction between waves and matter is very, very well understood. The equation has Planck's constant as a coefficient. Planck's constant is a very small number.
I don't have time now to go into this, but I read the paper you cited. Everything I say on Slashdot is only my opinion. My opinion is that the man who wrote knows that he is lying, and is therefore a liar. If I were dean at that university, I would seriously investigate whether he should be fired, or merely re-trained.
If you can describe clearly what those interactions are, you'll get a cool $1.3 million dollars, and think of all the women who would like to sleep with a Nobel Prize winner. (Actually, don't think of them, they're very tiresome.)
A way to express the issue is this. Well-understood calculations of the physics of low-power radio waves show that the power that reaches the brain is less than the power in the same frequency range that is there due to the energy of room-temperature heat.
Anyone who can show that biological processes interact with such low-power electromagnetic waves will have found a new kind of interaction between matter and energy, and can confidently expect to win a Nobel Prize.
Since there are a lot of people who would like to win a Nobel Prize, and since such people have not shown such interaction, we can assume that the issue is not taken seriously by real scientists.
The same issue has been raised several times in regards to possible dangers sitting in front of a CRT computer monitor, and in regards to living underneath power lines.
Statistics shows that statistically improbable things happen frequently, because there are millions of possible statistically improbable possibilities. People who don't know that get worried about "cancer clusters".
You said, "It seems that there is always some uninformed person who posts comments to stories like this who doesn't understand the definition of "alcoholic".
Here is a guess: You are not an alcoholic. No one in your family is an alcoholic. You have no friends who are alcoholics.
Both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney show the classic symptoms of being alcoholics. Here's a little of the voluminous evidence: The psychological effects of alcoholism
provide a framework for
understanding the Bush administration. See the section titled, "Typical personality characteristics of a recovered alcoholic". There is an enormous amount of information that would lead to this view, but in not included here.
The point of the comment that started this thread is not that the CBS Bush documents are genuine. That does not matter. The point is that the evidence shows that Bush quit the ANG the same month the ANG started drug testing because he had a drug problem.
One Bush family member said that she had seen George using cocaine on the grounds of Camp David while his father was president.
It seems that there is always some uninformed person who posts comments to
stories like this who doesn't realize that both U.S. President George W. Bush
and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney were both active alcoholics. So, here are
some of their arrest records:
Bush and Cheney are the most arrested U.S. president and
vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of
DUI and Dick Cheney twice:
There's really no need to rely on me for information about this subject. Just go to your local library and find magazines from the 1970s. You will find lots of Times New Roman, and you can see the letter spacing and line spacing yourself. You need a magazine that published in ragged right, the same as the CBS Bush documents. Try People Magazine, for example.
When Microsoft Times New Roman was introduced, the entire point was not to irritate those who had decades of experience with typesetting Times New Roman on other machines. That's why Microsoft felt it was worth paying for a license. You can see the license by viewing the Microsoft Times New Roman font file with a binary viewer.
If the machines were not adjusted correctly, adjoining letters would have a different vertical baseline. That's because adjoining letters in English words were different from the adjoining letters in the machine. The photocopying introduced serious distortions, but not so much in letters that were next to each other.
You said, But their document expert concluded, categorically, that the documents were produced on a computer after the 1970s. That's pretty close to saying "forgery".
Haven't you ever seen an old magazine or newspaper? They were all typeset. How do you think that was done?
Everyone agrees that they would have been produced with some kind of computer, or a Linotype machine!!! Linotype machines were made in the 1940's.
The only way to get proportionally-spaced type without a computer is to set the type by hand. Thousands of people have the equipment to do that. I know a graphic artist who bought her letterpress machine very cheaply on eBay, including boxes of type. It cost more to ship it than to buy it. But typesetting is time-consuming to do by hand.
However, that's not what would have happened, if the documents are real. Probably Lt. Colonel Killian's secretary was on vacation. He was very worried about being disciplined for breaking USAF and ANG rules. He didn't break a rule himself, but it was his repsonsibility to report anyone who broke the rules. On the other hand, if he openly reported one alcoholic, he would get severe hostility from all the others, and there were an amazing number. So, to protect himself, he scribbled something and took it to be typed. Instead of typing, he got typesetting; something that sometimes happened to me back then.
That hypothesis fits the facts. But why were the documents in language the secretary did not recognize? It's obvious if you know the situation at the time. Most people in a leadership position in the military at the time were functionally illiterate. They could not themselves write a sensible-seeming, gramatically-correct document that communicated what they wanted. So, the secretaries studied how to write documents in the accepted manner. I remember a secretary being scornful of an official document I wrote, because, although it was grammatically correct, it was not in the proper stilted military language. It is easy to guess that Lt. Colonel Killian's secretary was on vacation, and the woman who typed the document just transcribed his handwritten notes. That kind of thing happened all the time. A military office did not stop functioning when the secretary went on vacation.
Probably it is better if people not try to analyze this situation unless they have experience with typesetting.
I myself do not take any position on whether the documents are genuine. But, my first guess, before I saw them, was that they were fake. However, when I looked at them, I laughed. The documents have a defect that was produced when machines at that time were not properly adjusted. I was involved with typesetting in the years after the documents were dated, and I knew that a modern-day faker would not know to introduce that defect, especially since the defect would convince only people like me, and would make everyone else think negatively.
As I said in the grandparent post, the USAF was extremely corrupt at the time. (I have no information about now.) A co-worker went up the chain of command to protest that airmen were being used to construct golfing facilities on the base. He was eventually given a meeting with the base commander, who just took a golf ball out of his drawer and bounced it on his desk. Meeting over.
If you could go back in time and ask someone if a pilot could be an alcoholic, or if an rich person would get preferential treatment, they would just laugh! Back then the man who could drink the most was considered the most manly. This is similar to now, when some misguided men think they are more manly if they act like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
There is no difference between Microsoft Times New Roman and anyone elses' Times New Roman. Linotype licenses them all, and is not about to corrupt their most famous font. "Microsoft Times New Roman" merely refers to Microsoft's license from Linotype. Anyhow, the fonts used in the CBS Bush documents are definitely NOT the Time New Roman font. They merely use the same spacing, like hundreds or maybe even thousands of fonts.
Slashdot Mirror
My earlier comment on another story applies to the Canon i320, also: 26 Canon refills, $17
My opinion: Fire Carly Fiorina! She can't make money for the company without being adversarial for customers. When a company treats its customers badly to try to make more money, that is an indication that the CEO is desperate.
Reworded: "Where are our anti-trust laws when we need them?" The U.S. government is so corrupt that there is no chance there will be any government involvement. A government that kills other people just because a few people want that certainly will not be influenced by laws.
HP inkjets aren't competitive, anyway, so don't buy them. In my experience, they've been having terrible problems with their printer management programs.
HP's action speaks loud and clear: Try Canon!
Yes, MOD PARENT UP.
However, recognize that it was copied from an earlier discussion on Slashdot, and it is valuable to see the entire discussion. You might not otherwise click on the link at the bottom, which references that earlier discussion.
And, I should say SqLite is very impressive for many of the small uses of databases, or places where people should use databases, and haven't because of the complexity of the other ones.
There are a lot of very negative-thinking people who make comments on Slashdot. I have used SqLite, but not in production software, only to try it.
For lite uses, and many heavy ones, SQLite seems excellent. I haven't used it yet, but whoever writes for the project is an excellent communicator.
In my experience, most open source projects, and almost all commercial products, have a (maybe mostly unconscious) plan: "We will carefully measure how much hassle people will accept, and make sure we don't document anything more than enough to just barely keep people from rejecting us."
It's common to visit an open source project and find that, yes, they have a new version, but the manual is two years old. There are plenty of commericial projects that are the same way, like Netgear's FVS318. Their reference manual is for version 1.4, but the latest version is 2.4.
An advantage of open source projects is that they are usually far more honest than commercial projects. I love this from the PostgreSQL What's New page: "Although tested throughout our release cycle, the Windows port does not have the benefit of years of use in production environments that PostgreSQL has on Unix platforms and therefore should be treated with the same level of caution as you would a new product." Marketing people are generally so dishonest that they would not allow an honest statement like this.
MySQL is a non-standard implementation of SQL. That's a problem that's probably partly caused by not doing good documentation. If they had documented everything as they wrote MySQL, they might have seen what a mess they were making. Bad documentation obscures programming messes.
PostgreSQL has an elaborate documentation system, and the new features are very impressive.
MOD PARENT UP!!!! That is an excellent analysis.
Quote: "... no-one who has zero day exploits goes around using them on random machines."
Very few managers of technology companies have the technical understanding they need to do their jobs well.
Consider one thing: when you examine the information, you will see that BroadVoice is the best. It's easy. BroadVoice provides Free Calls, as in "you don't have to pay a per-minute charge to other countries".
Yes, it is shilling, but it is also an excellent service to consider. No, I don't work for them. What I don't like is a recommendation that is not the best.
But BroadVoice gives you free calling with the $25 per month plan: My opinion: Be careful about PC Magazine.
I came to the same conclusion: My opinion: Be careful about PC Magazine
Afterthought: If you sign up for BroadVoice, it won't hurt to enter this number in the "Referred By" field: 5039145841
From the BroadVoice web site: Compare Broadvoice, Vonage, and AT&T.
From the story: "... the calculated scores don't carry much weight as they award AT&T's CallVantage the Editor's Choice and four other services strangely tie for second place."
My opinion: Be very careful about anything you see in PC Magazine. My experience is that generally the ratings are paid ads. Generally, I have found, they know the winner in advance, and pick contenders that they can rate lower.
Here's evidence: Can you find a better VOIP service than BroadVoice? (NOTE: Not BroadVox.) Why didn't PC Magazine rate that company?
It seemed to me that there was a time when PC Magazine began selling their ratings, and in the years after that the Magazine became much smaller very quickly.
Other fake comparisons on the Internet:
1) Telephone calling cards,
2) Price comparison web sites. The comparisons are just ways of convincing you to pay more. It always seems that the apparently completely honest Froogle shows lower prices.
Here's a quote from the new paper to which you linked: "Difficulties in replication can often be traced to some crucial difference in experimental protocol that effectively undermines the fidelity of the intended replication. Thus the reason why it has not been possible to replicate some experiments is precisely because they have not actually been replicated!"
Now there's an entire weasel paragraph!
Until someone can replicate the experiments, it is not considered experimental science. That's why we no longer take cold fusion seriously. No amount of weasel verbiage has the slightest possibility of changing the way people do real science.
The author of that paper is all over the map. He makes Dr. Henry Lai look like a tower of propriety.
He has apparently collected all the hypotheses he could find in one paper. Amazing: Groups of cells resonating with microwave frequencies! The human body demodulating radio signals and responding to the demodulated signal!
If someone could demonstrate truth in either of those, he or she would definitely be a candidate for a Nobel Prize.
I don't want to spend the time responding to everything in that paper. But the purpose is clear. He is attacking an area where he believes he will get the most attention. Cell phones causing damage is a hot topic among foggy-minded people now. A more intellectually honest person would consider other sources of electromagnetic radiation: 1) Airplanes with radar flying overhead, 2) 50,000 watt AM and FM radio and TV stations (4 different frequency bands), 3) Airport radar, 4) Cordless phones, 5) The neighbor next door and his 1,000 watt amateur radio transmitter, 6) Billions of high energy particles entering the atmosphere and ionizing air molecules, which then spray gamma rays everywhere. 7) CB radios.
Isn't it odd that biological processes respond specifically to GSM signals?
Maybe forty years ago, there was great concern for a while about living near a radio or TV station.
Thanks for the compliment about the web site.
Everything I've written here is just my present opinion, and not well-researched and edited enough to be more than a Slashdot comment.
I study these kinds of things a lot, and my opinion is that the kind of lying that Dr. Lai did in the paper you mentioned originally is typical for someone exhibiting one of the worst elements of the Chinese culture, and very unscientific.
Here is a more honest, but still dishonest, paper of the same genre as the two by Dr. Lai you have mentioned: A 3 milliTesla 60 Hz magnetic field is neither mutagenic nor co-mutagenic....
The first sentence is, "The mechanisms by which an electromagnetic field (EMF) influences biological material are poorly understood." That's somewhat honest. A truly honest sentence would read, "The mechanisms by which an electromagnetic field (EMF) influences chemical reactions are poorly understood", because there is nothing specific about the reaction of the processes of biological chemistry to electromagnetic fields. The same effects occur in non-biological reactions.
Apparently none of the papers like this one propose anything that they claim is specific to the chemistry of biological processes. The papers allow and encourage readers to believe that there is a special connection between biology and electromagnetic fields only to make the work seem more important.
The next sentence of the abstract is, "One potentially important model suggests that a magnetic field can stabilize free radicals in such a way as to permit their dispersement rather than their return to the ground state (Okazaki et al., 1988; Scaiano, 1995)." I don't have access to either of those papers, but my guess from a quick Google search is that Okazaki's paper might be entirely reasonable science. The problem is that there is no honest relationship between this paper and the one by Okazaki being cited. The paper to which I've linked is what is commonly known as "junk science".
That paper, which I picked at random from a quick Google search on the term "milliTesla", goes on to say, "We have tested this hypothesis by examining.... They are certainly not testing any such hypothesis, or they are testing it in a very, very weak way.
The reason these papers study a "60 Hz sinusoidal field" is because that's what you get when you plug the power that comes out of the wall into a coil of wire. The most noticeable effect is not that an alternating magnetic field is generated, but that the coil gets hot. Maybe the genetic breakage is caused the scaring the rat. Maybe he thinks he is being cooked.
Few of the people who work in scientific fields are actually scientists. More than 50%, and many true scientists say more than 90%, are just lab tinkerers.
This is the distinction: Good science is theory-guided. Junk science is not theory-guided, but just tries something in hopes that it will reveal something else. Any "theories" junk scientists have typically hang disconnected like a fly trapped in Jello. True science builds further knowledge on a strong foundation of what is already verified.
The problem with Henry Lai's paper "Magnetic-Field-Induced DNA Strand Breaks in Brain Cells of the Rat" is that, while it is interesting to know that magnetic fields have effects on chemical compounds, the paper takes advantage of an opportunity for social fraud. Many of the grant-givers don't have much scientific knowledge. The grant-givers give grants based on their perception of the importance of the work, and this paper takes advantage of their ignorance by allowing the grant-givers to believe something that is false.
The falsehood is that magnetic fields affect genetic material in some special way that only can be studied in genetic mat
Possibly I didn't express myself clearly enough before. Interaction between waves and matter is very, very well understood. The equation has Planck's constant as a coefficient. Planck's constant is a very small number.
I don't have time now to go into this, but I read the paper you cited. Everything I say on Slashdot is only my opinion. My opinion is that the man who wrote knows that he is lying, and is therefore a liar. If I were dean at that university, I would seriously investigate whether he should be fired, or merely re-trained.
If you can describe clearly what those interactions are, you'll get a cool $1.3 million dollars, and think of all the women who would like to sleep with a Nobel Prize winner. (Actually, don't think of them, they're very tiresome.)
A way to express the issue is this. Well-understood calculations of the physics of low-power radio waves show that the power that reaches the brain is less than the power in the same frequency range that is there due to the energy of room-temperature heat.
Anyone who can show that biological processes interact with such low-power electromagnetic waves will have found a new kind of interaction between matter and energy, and can confidently expect to win a Nobel Prize.
Since there are a lot of people who would like to win a Nobel Prize, and since such people have not shown such interaction, we can assume that the issue is not taken seriously by real scientists.
The same issue has been raised several times in regards to possible dangers sitting in front of a CRT computer monitor, and in regards to living underneath power lines.
Statistics shows that statistically improbable things happen frequently, because there are millions of possible statistically improbable possibilities. People who don't know that get worried about "cancer clusters".
You said, "It seems that there is always some uninformed person who posts comments to stories like this who doesn't understand the definition of "alcoholic".
Here is a guess: You are not an alcoholic. No one in your family is an alcoholic. You have no friends who are alcoholics.
Both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney show the classic symptoms of being alcoholics. Here's a little of the voluminous evidence: The psychological effects of alcoholism provide a framework for understanding the Bush administration. See the section titled, "Typical personality characteristics of a recovered alcoholic". There is an enormous amount of information that would lead to this view, but in not included here.
The point of the comment that started this thread is not that the CBS Bush documents are genuine. That does not matter. The point is that the evidence shows that Bush quit the ANG the same month the ANG started drug testing because he had a drug problem.
One Bush family member said that she had seen George using cocaine on the grounds of Camp David while his father was president.
Definitely not caused by faxing.
It seems that there is always some uninformed person who posts comments to stories like this who doesn't realize that both U.S. President George W. Bush and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney were both active alcoholics. So, here are some of their arrest records:
Bush and Cheney are the most arrested U.S. president and vice-president in history. George W. Bush was arrested once for the crime of DUI and Dick Cheney twice:
George W. Bush DUI, 1st record of arrest
George W. Bush DUI, 2nd record of arrest
George W. Bush was arrested 2 other times in his life, also, for stunts that were not something a sober person would find interesting.
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 1st arrest
Dick Cheney DUI, record of 2nd arrest
There's really no need to rely on me for information about this subject. Just go to your local library and find magazines from the 1970s. You will find lots of Times New Roman, and you can see the letter spacing and line spacing yourself. You need a magazine that published in ragged right, the same as the CBS Bush documents. Try People Magazine, for example.
When Microsoft Times New Roman was introduced, the entire point was not to irritate those who had decades of experience with typesetting Times New Roman on other machines. That's why Microsoft felt it was worth paying for a license. You can see the license by viewing the Microsoft Times New Roman font file with a binary viewer.
If the machines were not adjusted correctly, adjoining letters would have a different vertical baseline. That's because adjoining letters in English words were different from the adjoining letters in the machine. The photocopying introduced serious distortions, but not so much in letters that were next to each other.
You said, But their document expert concluded, categorically, that the documents were produced on a computer after the 1970s. That's pretty close to saying "forgery".
Haven't you ever seen an old magazine or newspaper? They were all typeset. How do you think that was done?
Everyone agrees that they would have been produced with some kind of computer, or a Linotype machine!!! Linotype machines were made in the 1940's.
The only way to get proportionally-spaced type without a computer is to set the type by hand. Thousands of people have the equipment to do that. I know a graphic artist who bought her letterpress machine very cheaply on eBay, including boxes of type. It cost more to ship it than to buy it. But typesetting is time-consuming to do by hand.
However, that's not what would have happened, if the documents are real. Probably Lt. Colonel Killian's secretary was on vacation. He was very worried about being disciplined for breaking USAF and ANG rules. He didn't break a rule himself, but it was his repsonsibility to report anyone who broke the rules. On the other hand, if he openly reported one alcoholic, he would get severe hostility from all the others, and there were an amazing number. So, to protect himself, he scribbled something and took it to be typed. Instead of typing, he got typesetting; something that sometimes happened to me back then.
That hypothesis fits the facts. But why were the documents in language the secretary did not recognize? It's obvious if you know the situation at the time. Most people in a leadership position in the military at the time were functionally illiterate. They could not themselves write a sensible-seeming, gramatically-correct document that communicated what they wanted. So, the secretaries studied how to write documents in the accepted manner. I remember a secretary being scornful of an official document I wrote, because, although it was grammatically correct, it was not in the proper stilted military language. It is easy to guess that Lt. Colonel Killian's secretary was on vacation, and the woman who typed the document just transcribed his handwritten notes. That kind of thing happened all the time. A military office did not stop functioning when the secretary went on vacation.
Probably it is better if people not try to analyze this situation unless they have experience with typesetting.
I myself do not take any position on whether the documents are genuine. But, my first guess, before I saw them, was that they were fake. However, when I looked at them, I laughed. The documents have a defect that was produced when machines at that time were not properly adjusted. I was involved with typesetting in the years after the documents were dated, and I knew that a modern-day faker would not know to introduce that defect, especially since the defect would convince only people like me, and would make everyone else think negatively.
As I said in the grandparent post, the USAF was extremely corrupt at the time. (I have no information about now.) A co-worker went up the chain of command to protest that airmen were being used to construct golfing facilities on the base. He was eventually given a meeting with the base commander, who just took a golf ball out of his drawer and bounced it on his desk. Meeting over.
If you could go back in time and ask someone if a pilot could be an alcoholic, or if an rich person would get preferential treatment, they would just laugh! Back then the man who could drink the most was considered the most manly. This is similar to now, when some misguided men think they are more manly if they act like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
There is no difference between Microsoft Times New Roman and anyone elses' Times New Roman. Linotype licenses them all, and is not about to corrupt their most famous font. "Microsoft Times New Roman" merely refers to Microsoft's license from Linotype. Anyhow, the fonts used in the CBS Bush documents are definitely NOT the Time New Roman font. They merely use the same spacing, like hundreds or maybe even thousands of fonts.