Maybe if we had vigorously implemented these tactics 50 or 100 years ago we might have been able to accomplish something, but at this point it's way too late. Big money interests have such a stranglehold on the US political process at this point that your opinion and mine count for nothing at all.
Sorry to be so cynical, and I agree with you in principle, but none of this is going to matter a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys. The only tactic I can see that might work to reform the political system in any way is simply to wait around until it collapses under its own weight.
...that the political process is for sale in the US, this should dispel it. My qeustion is, why does this come as a surprise to people? It's been clear for decades that the political process serves the interests of money almost exclulsively.
What can we do about it? Nothing! What do you think you're going to do, overthrow the system or something? Force policicians to be honest?
In a market system the market rules. I agree that we should try to stop this sort of thing of course, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
The good thing about corruption is that it accelerates the internal collapse and degradation of the system. Just give it time, it'll all fall apart eventually.
Re:The Only Thing Stronger Than The System...
on
Equilibrium
·
· Score: 1
Not necessarily. Think about the butterfly effect in Chaos Theory. In all seriousness, no one man is stronger than the System, the idea is silly. This doesn't make the System invulnerable though.
This would totally work. The maggots would remove the dead flesh easily and painlessly. With the wound clean it is easy to cure! That's awesome, thanks very much!
This reminds me of stories I've heard about the MIT cyborgs, these guys at MIT who used to walk around with a portable 386 with simitransparent goggles and 4-button handheld keypads. They would walk around campus coding. Anybody know these guys?
I live in the tropics, and I and many others in this area have recently contracted a highly antibiotic-resistant strain of staph. It responds to antibiotics to some extent in some people, but in others antibiotics seem to have little effect. I know a guy who has had it for a year or more, his leg is half gone, he's been in and out of the hospital several times and he can't seem to get rid of it.
I and many others have cured ourselves without antibiotics, and I want to tell you how. This by no means qualifies as official medical information, it's just what happened.
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor and this is not a scientific analysis. This is just my story. It worked for me. If you have staph you should seek medical attention immediately. It's no joke, and even the doctors may not be able to help you.
OK, if you have a weak stomach, stop reading now.
First I should explain how staph attacks you, typically. Usually what happens is that you get a nick on your lower leg, and it just won't heal. Soon you have a festering infection which grows rapidly. It's amazingly efficient and agressive. It eats a sizable hole in your leg, and then starts to spread. You start getting pimples on other parts of your body which quickly grow and soon your are covered with round, dime or quarter-sized oozing festering holes. It's pretty horrifying. If you don't do something about it, you will end up with serious problems.
I was infected for a couple of months, but I recovered without antibiotics, and many others have by using similar techniques. I have thought about the whole experience a lot, and I think I can identify the core elements of a successful staph cure. These elements can be divided into two main categories. First, you must have some kind of internal defense to prevent the spread of the staph through the bloodstream and the intercellular fluid. In the usual cure this is done by antibiotics, but these are losing their effectiveness. But fortunately your body comes equipped with an immune system for this purpose, but you must do everything you can to strengthen it and give it the advantage over the bacteria. Secondly, you must have some sort of external attack. This is the really horrible part. The staph burrows under the dead flesh it kills, making it extremely difficult to attack from the outside.
Internal Defense
NO SUGAR!!! You must avoid sugar, starch if possible, fat, alcohol and cigarettes at all costs. Your life may actually depend on this, so don't try to cheat. This is the staph diet, and the staph will rigorously enforce it. Staph appears to feed on the sugar in the intercellular fluid, mostly in the fatty tissue just under the skin. When your blood sugar goes up, it goes crazy. One night I couldn't stand the sugar cravings any more and I ate 6 banannas. The next morning I woke up with 20 new sores starting. When I did finally get rid of it, it was only when I stopped eating sugar completely. Everyone who has had staph agrees on this. Avoiding sugar is the only way to stop getting new sores.
Bolster your immune system. Do anything you can to do this. Get lots of rest, drink lots of fluids, eat vitamin C and other antioxidants, do anything you can think of to strengthen your body's defense. Alcohol and tobacco weaken your immune system, and must be avoided. There are a number of local herbs which people say help, I can't really give evidence on these one way or another and besides they probably don't grow where you live.
Consider taking antibiotics anyway. I didn't, but sometimes they help somewhat even if they don't completely kill the staph. The resistant strain seems to have a higher survival rate, but it does still kill some of them. But taking antibiotics does not exempt you from the other elements of the cure, so don't even think about slacking off. Curing staph is a full time job, and you must give it your whole attention.
External attack
This can be divided into two phases. In the first phase, the staph colony is expanding into the flesh around it, and your attack must be very aggressive. In the second phase, your body has isolated the colony and built a membranous wall around it. Then the treatment must be very gentle.
Phase one; Expanders:
This is the really horrible part, so brace yourself. The staph burrows under the dead flesh it kills, leaving a hard, tough gray scab. This material is incredibly strong, we should be using it in high tech aircraft design or something, it's amazing. This stuff must be removed by any means necessary. This is not fun. Some people take the leaves of a certain plant, boil them, take a handful and scrub the wounds hard until the scabs come off. This is horribly painful, and takes a long time because the leaves are soft. Some use a scrubby, brillo pad, or steel wool. This is even more painful, but is much faster. However, it does a lot of peripheral damage, which then gets infected. Personally, I used a razor blade, and just gouged that shit out of there. This is also horribly painful and takes a long time and is really really disgusting (the worst part is the smell of your own rotting flesh), but it is very precise and it works nicely. You must do this at least once a day, preferably twice or even three times. The staph grows fast.
Disinfectant. Once you have removed the dead flesh as completely as possible (you will know you have done this because when you get down to the living flesh it starts to bleed profusely, and it really starts to hurt like hell), you must disinfect the area thoroughly to kill as much of the colony as possible. This is just a numbers game. Exponential growth is a bitch. Some use hot water with a lot of salt, but I prefer hydrogen peroxide and chlorine, which are highly toxic and quite effective. Iodine for some reason seems to have little effect. Washing afterwards with antibacterial soap is also a good idea.
During this phase, I think the wounds should be left open. This is to encourage them to ooze pus, which is actually a good thing because it establishes an outward flow of fluid and slows the staph down. The objective of this phase is to slow the growth of the colony enough for your body to build a membranous wall around it, isolating the infection from the intercellular fluid and allowing the healing process to begin.
Phase 2; Contractors:
You will know you have entered this phase when you stop finding so much dead flesh, and the colony slows its growth. At this point you build a wall around the infection, and within a couple of days the remaining dead flesh outside the wall should come off easily, without extensive scrubbing. Now you must change your approach:
Scrub the wounds gently with boiled Coralito leaves or a soft cloth. The idea is to remove the loose organic matter without damaging the wall.
Continue to disinfect after each scrub.
Cover the wound. The absolute best way to do this is to take this one kind of leaves called Coralito or Red Top, toast them to a fine powder over a low heat, and apply this powder to the wound after disinfecting. This hurts like hell for some reason but is very effective in drawing out the fluid and protecting the wound. In this phase the wound will ooze a lot. That's OK, even though it's pretty nasty.
Gradually the wound will begin to shrink. You must stick with the treatment rigorously and stick to the diet mercelessly. The cases that go on and on are the ones where the person simply cannot force themself to avoid sugar, alcohol and cigarettes, and just keep getting new infections.
Also, a note about clenliness. It's really important. You must clean and disinfect your entire environment completely all the time, especially your clothes and bedding. Do lots of laundry, take lots of showers, use chlorine liberally.
Well, that about covers it. After two months of this horrible daily torture, I finally got a grip on my sugar consumption, cured my last big sore, and recovered. I have big scars on my legs to tell the tale, but I'm actually grateful for the experience. It builds a hell of a lot of will power, which is useful stuff.
It's only sad if you are attached to old, mechanistic, deterministic paradigms. You could instead rejoice in the glorious dawn of a new paradigm, one which deals with experience rather than with absolutes.
Well if we, on the planet, constitute a group brain, then what about all the squirrels and iguanas and frogs and lions and wombats and single-celled organisms out there? Huh? Where do they fit in?
Oh, sure, you can include them too, and you get what's called the "Gaia hypothesis." Personally, I think that all distinctions are a product of cognition. We look at the universe, which is one whole thing, and we cut it up into little pieces so that we can think and talk about it, but the distinctions are arbitrary and imaginary.
I totally agree about memes, though, they provide a much better and more complete explanation of these things.
This thing that we call a "man" is only one small part of the thing we call the "universe". The distinction is arbitrary and can be very limiting, restricting our affections to the close circle of those around us. Our task must be to overcome this limitation by extending our circle of compassion to include the entire universe." -- Einstein
(I may have some of the words of that quote wrong, but I've got the gist of it. Einstein said this to someone who came to him seeking consolation on the death of his son.)
Just the opposite. Solipsism is the belief that only you exist and that everything is a figment of your imagination. I'm saying, rather, that everything exists, and you are a figment of your imagination.
OOPS, submitted by accident. Let me try this again.
You haven't really understood it, then.
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
Actually, I've understood it all too well.
My collegue here has already pointed out the problem with the spectrometer. But there's another problem with your statement too. There can be no absolute objective criteria for which theories are more cumbersome and which explain more. To determine this, you must make a subjective judgement call.
Furthermore, objectivity as an epistemological stance breaks down. The reason for this is that objectivity assumes that the observer is separate from the system being observed, which is clearly not the case. In fact, recent evidence suggests that the system being observed may not even exist as such until it is observed. Thus the observer is inextricably entangled with the system, and can never be truely objective. In the end, all you can really say is, "this sheep sure looks black to me."
This also brings up another interesting point. Binary logic only works on models. In the real world, sheep are not black or white, they are varying shades of gray. Who is to say where to draw the line? Where this question gets even more interesting is when you apply it to people. What color are you? I bet you define yourself as either black or white, but in fact most of your skin is probably some shade of brownish pink. The terms "black" and "white", as applied to people, are social constructs rather than statements of physical fact.
The solution to all of this is to use fuzzy logic! Then statements are not regarded as true or false, but are rather assigned a real number between 0 and 1. This gets around the difficulty very nicely, and allows you to state very precisely and mathimatically that this sheep is probably black and that therefore the statement "all sheep are white" is probably false.
The line you draw at the edge of your skin which separates you from the rest of the universe is purely imaginary. You are more a part of it than you think, in fact, in some sense, "you" are a figment of your own imagination.
This seems to be yet another example of what Jung was saying about the collective unconscious. Over and over in history there seem to be cases of people either prediscovering things, like Poe, without any basis or proof, or of people coming up with the same idea at about the same time without any apparent connection between them (e.g. the invention of calculus).
This seems to mean that the entire species acts as a single huge brain, if you like. There needn't be a supernatural explanation for this. It could just be that culture as a whole processes information, the results of this processing turning up in random people's ideas in strange ways. Weird wild stuff...
Actually you're not saying the same things. Look, to use your example:
Suppose you think you've found a priest who does not have a blue corpse in his back yard, thus falsifying the theory that all priests have a blue corpse in their back yard. But the reason the proof tree is infinite is that you now have to prove with absolute certainty that there is not a blue corpse in this priest's back yard. How do you know? Maybe you just haven't looked hard enough. So then you must go through everything in the priest's back yard and prove that it is not a blue corpse, and then you must prove somehow that you have exiamined every object in the priest's back yard. It goes on and on, and you can never prove it with total certainty.
Allow me to elaborate on this for a moment, I've always been very interested in this subject.
If you say all sheep are white, and you find a black one, you have proven the statement wrong.
This sounds pretty straightforward. But now, in order to falsify your theory (all sheep are white) with certainty, you must prove absolutely the statement, "this sheep is black." This is fraught with difficulties (beginning with the exact definition of "sheep" and "black" and spreading out from there), and in fact turns out to be impossible to do with total rigor.
This is a very subtle issue, though, and for a long time people thought that Popper had it right. Then, of course, they falsified his theory;-). When Kuhn first came on the scene, he received a lot of objections along the lines of your comment, and was accused of undermining the basis of science and turning it into a mere popularity contest. The problem is, no matter how clearly you think you've falsified a theory, the proponents of that theory can always come up with some kind of wild assumption or argument to save their theory. The trick is, at some point these assumptions get unwieldy, cumbersome, ugly, and awkward (e.g. the increasing number of circular orbits needed to save the old Ptolemaic theory of the solar system from the attack being made on it by Copernicus and co...), and eventually you just have to say, "well, yeah, it could be like that, technically, but it's just silly!"
This means that in the end you have to make an essentially esthetic judgement about the elegance and simplicity of the theory. This judgment is informed by reasonable criteria but is not made on the basis of strict logic.
I think this is cool, myself, it makes science a form of art.
It's not so much a matter of new evidence as of the assumptions you are making before the experiment. For instance, in this case, you are assuming that the sheep has not been painted black, that it's not standing in a region of intense shadow, etc.
Of course you have chosen an example case which is fairly clear-cut. You can probably get away with saying that there is a very high probablity that the statement is false. My point is that you can never know with absolute certainty. This is the objection commonly held, in philosophy of science, to obsolete Popper's theories in favor of those of Kuhn and his followers, who coined the word "paradigm" and elaborated the idea of a "paradigm shift" to describe the real process of theory selection in science.
our tiny minds cannot comprehend nor visualize many things
Indeed, it has even been seriously proposed that the wave function itself exists all around us, but it is merely the limitation of our minds which prevents us from seeing all possible universes. And that's only the beginning.
As for mathimatical proofs, consider Godel's thm, which states that it is impossible to have a complete consistant binary logic system (this is proved, of course, using binary logic!). Try to visualize that! No way.
These guys in particular may be babbling unscientific nonsense, but this doesn't change the fact that theoretical physics is getting weirder and weirder all the time, and much serious science is far more far out than this.
Your theory is crazy. On that we are all agreed. The question is, is it crazy enough to be true? -- Neils Bohr
Proof of incorrectness is not absolute. The problem is that in any experimental setup, you have to make all kinds of assumptions and models and approximations which can never be proven. These are called auxilliary assumptions. If the experiment doesn't turn out the way theory predicts, you never know if you've disproved the theory or the assumptions.
For example if my theory is "all foo's are bar" a knowledgeable reader can realized all she needs to find is a single foo that isn't bar.
The problem with this is that you then have to prove that the foo is not bar. Popper's theory was proposed in the first place to answer objections by Hume and others that you can never really prove that a statement is true by empirical evidence, because you may always find some case later in which the statement is false. So by this reasoning, you can't ever prove that fo is not bar, because you might somehow later find a case in which the fo is bar.
Let's face it, you can't really prove anything absolutely. There will always be a certain amount of uncertainty about things. Deal with it.
Oh, don't worry, you're about to find out! Just watch, this will be followed and accompanied by a huge hype about cyber-terrorism, and will pass without a glitch. Haxors are the next target (by whatever name you want to call them).
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, what the Hell are you doing on /.?
Sorry to be so cynical, and I agree with you in principle, but none of this is going to matter a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys. The only tactic I can see that might work to reform the political system in any way is simply to wait around until it collapses under its own weight.
What can we do about it? Nothing! What do you think you're going to do, overthrow the system or something? Force policicians to be honest?
In a market system the market rules. I agree that we should try to stop this sort of thing of course, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
The good thing about corruption is that it accelerates the internal collapse and degradation of the system. Just give it time, it'll all fall apart eventually.
Not necessarily. Think about the butterfly effect in Chaos Theory. In all seriousness, no one man is stronger than the System, the idea is silly. This doesn't make the System invulnerable though.
This would totally work. The maggots would remove the dead flesh easily and painlessly. With the wound clean it is easy to cure! That's awesome, thanks very much!
It is. But you can deal with it. I think staph is mostly dangerous to people with compromised immune systems.
Better program it with Asimov's laws of robotics, otherwise this trend could eventually get pretty scary.
This reminds me of stories I've heard about the MIT cyborgs, these guys at MIT who used to walk around with a portable 386 with simitransparent goggles and 4-button handheld keypads. They would walk around campus coding. Anybody know these guys?
I and many others have cured ourselves without antibiotics, and I want to tell you how. This by no means qualifies as official medical information, it's just what happened.
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor and this is not a scientific analysis. This is just my story. It worked for me. If you have staph you should seek medical attention immediately. It's no joke, and even the doctors may not be able to help you.
OK, if you have a weak stomach, stop reading now.
First I should explain how staph attacks you, typically. Usually what happens is that you get a nick on your lower leg, and it just won't heal. Soon you have a festering infection which grows rapidly. It's amazingly efficient and agressive. It eats a sizable hole in your leg, and then starts to spread. You start getting pimples on other parts of your body which quickly grow and soon your are covered with round, dime or quarter-sized oozing festering holes. It's pretty horrifying. If you don't do something about it, you will end up with serious problems.
I was infected for a couple of months, but I recovered without antibiotics, and many others have by using similar techniques. I have thought about the whole experience a lot, and I think I can identify the core elements of a successful staph cure. These elements can be divided into two main categories. First, you must have some kind of internal defense to prevent the spread of the staph through the bloodstream and the intercellular fluid. In the usual cure this is done by antibiotics, but these are losing their effectiveness. But fortunately your body comes equipped with an immune system for this purpose, but you must do everything you can to strengthen it and give it the advantage over the bacteria. Secondly, you must have some sort of external attack. This is the really horrible part. The staph burrows under the dead flesh it kills, making it extremely difficult to attack from the outside.
Internal Defense
External attack
This can be divided into two phases. In the first phase, the staph colony is expanding into the flesh around it, and your attack must be very aggressive. In the second phase, your body has isolated the colony and built a membranous wall around it. Then the treatment must be very gentle.
Phase one; Expanders:
During this phase, I think the wounds should be left open. This is to encourage them to ooze pus, which is actually a good thing because it establishes an outward flow of fluid and slows the staph down. The objective of this phase is to slow the growth of the colony enough for your body to build a membranous wall around it, isolating the infection from the intercellular fluid and allowing the healing process to begin.
Phase 2; Contractors:
You will know you have entered this phase when you stop finding so much dead flesh, and the colony slows its growth. At this point you build a wall around the infection, and within a couple of days the remaining dead flesh outside the wall should come off easily, without extensive scrubbing. Now you must change your approach:
Gradually the wound will begin to shrink. You must stick with the treatment rigorously and stick to the diet mercelessly. The cases that go on and on are the ones where the person simply cannot force themself to avoid sugar, alcohol and cigarettes, and just keep getting new infections.
Also, a note about clenliness. It's really important. You must clean and disinfect your entire environment completely all the time, especially your clothes and bedding. Do lots of laundry, take lots of showers, use chlorine liberally.
Well, that about covers it. After two months of this horrible daily torture, I finally got a grip on my sugar consumption, cured my last big sore, and recovered. I have big scars on my legs to tell the tale, but I'm actually grateful for the experience. It builds a hell of a lot of will power, which is useful stuff.
Good luck, and may the Force be with you.
Since Newton stole it from Leibniz in the first place. Turnabout is fair play.
It's only sad if you are attached to old, mechanistic, deterministic paradigms. You could instead rejoice in the glorious dawn of a new paradigm, one which deals with experience rather than with absolutes.
Oh, sure, you can include them too, and you get what's called the "Gaia hypothesis." Personally, I think that all distinctions are a product of cognition. We look at the universe, which is one whole thing, and we cut it up into little pieces so that we can think and talk about it, but the distinctions are arbitrary and imaginary.
I totally agree about memes, though, they provide a much better and more complete explanation of these things.
This thing that we call a "man" is only one small part of the thing we call the "universe". The distinction is arbitrary and can be very limiting, restricting our affections to the close circle of those around us. Our task must be to overcome this limitation by extending our circle of compassion to include the entire universe." -- Einstein
(I may have some of the words of that quote wrong, but I've got the gist of it. Einstein said this to someone who came to him seeking consolation on the death of his son.)
Just the opposite. Solipsism is the belief that only you exist and that everything is a figment of your imagination. I'm saying, rather, that everything exists, and you are a figment of your imagination.
You haven't really understood it, then.
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?
Actually, I've understood it all too well.
My collegue here has already pointed out the problem with the spectrometer. But there's another problem with your statement too. There can be no absolute objective criteria for which theories are more cumbersome and which explain more. To determine this, you must make a subjective judgement call.
Furthermore, objectivity as an epistemological stance breaks down. The reason for this is that objectivity assumes that the observer is separate from the system being observed, which is clearly not the case. In fact, recent evidence suggests that the system being observed may not even exist as such until it is observed. Thus the observer is inextricably entangled with the system, and can never be truely objective. In the end, all you can really say is, "this sheep sure looks black to me."
This also brings up another interesting point. Binary logic only works on models. In the real world, sheep are not black or white, they are varying shades of gray. Who is to say where to draw the line? Where this question gets even more interesting is when you apply it to people. What color are you? I bet you define yourself as either black or white, but in fact most of your skin is probably some shade of brownish pink. The terms "black" and "white", as applied to people, are social constructs rather than statements of physical fact.
The solution to all of this is to use fuzzy logic! Then statements are not regarded as true or false, but are rather assigned a real number between 0 and 1. This gets around the difficulty very nicely, and allows you to state very precisely and mathimatically that this sheep is probably black and that therefore the statement "all sheep are white" is probably false.
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you!
The line you draw at the edge of your skin which separates you from the rest of the universe is purely imaginary. You are more a part of it than you think, in fact, in some sense, "you" are a figment of your own imagination.
Yes, but where are you going to run to?
This seems to mean that the entire species acts as a single huge brain, if you like. There needn't be a supernatural explanation for this. It could just be that culture as a whole processes information, the results of this processing turning up in random people's ideas in strange ways. Weird wild stuff...
Suppose you think you've found a priest who does not have a blue corpse in his back yard, thus falsifying the theory that all priests have a blue corpse in their back yard. But the reason the proof tree is infinite is that you now have to prove with absolute certainty that there is not a blue corpse in this priest's back yard. How do you know? Maybe you just haven't looked hard enough. So then you must go through everything in the priest's back yard and prove that it is not a blue corpse, and then you must prove somehow that you have exiamined every object in the priest's back yard. It goes on and on, and you can never prove it with total certainty.
If you say all sheep are white, and you find a black one, you have proven the statement wrong.
This sounds pretty straightforward. But now, in order to falsify your theory (all sheep are white) with certainty, you must prove absolutely the statement, "this sheep is black." This is fraught with difficulties (beginning with the exact definition of "sheep" and "black" and spreading out from there), and in fact turns out to be impossible to do with total rigor.
This is a very subtle issue, though, and for a long time people thought that Popper had it right. Then, of course, they falsified his theory ;-). When Kuhn first came on the scene, he received a lot of objections along the lines of your comment, and was accused of undermining the basis of science and turning it into a mere popularity contest. The problem is, no matter how clearly you think you've falsified a theory, the proponents of that theory can always come up with some kind of wild assumption or argument to save their theory. The trick is, at some point these assumptions get unwieldy, cumbersome, ugly, and awkward (e.g. the increasing number of circular orbits needed to save the old Ptolemaic theory of the solar system from the attack being made on it by Copernicus and co...), and eventually you just have to say, "well, yeah, it could be like that, technically, but it's just silly!"
This means that in the end you have to make an essentially esthetic judgement about the elegance and simplicity of the theory. This judgment is informed by reasonable criteria but is not made on the basis of strict logic.
I think this is cool, myself, it makes science a form of art.
Of course you have chosen an example case which is fairly clear-cut. You can probably get away with saying that there is a very high probablity that the statement is false. My point is that you can never know with absolute certainty. This is the objection commonly held, in philosophy of science, to obsolete Popper's theories in favor of those of Kuhn and his followers, who coined the word "paradigm" and elaborated the idea of a "paradigm shift" to describe the real process of theory selection in science.
Indeed, it has even been seriously proposed that the wave function itself exists all around us, but it is merely the limitation of our minds which prevents us from seeing all possible universes. And that's only the beginning.
As for mathimatical proofs, consider Godel's thm, which states that it is impossible to have a complete consistant binary logic system (this is proved, of course, using binary logic!). Try to visualize that! No way.
These guys in particular may be babbling unscientific nonsense, but this doesn't change the fact that theoretical physics is getting weirder and weirder all the time, and much serious science is far more far out than this.
Your theory is crazy. On that we are all agreed. The question is, is it crazy enough to be true? -- Neils Bohr
Proof of incorrectness is not absolute. The problem is that in any experimental setup, you have to make all kinds of assumptions and models and approximations which can never be proven. These are called auxilliary assumptions. If the experiment doesn't turn out the way theory predicts, you never know if you've disproved the theory or the assumptions.
The problem with this is that you then have to prove that the foo is not bar. Popper's theory was proposed in the first place to answer objections by Hume and others that you can never really prove that a statement is true by empirical evidence, because you may always find some case later in which the statement is false. So by this reasoning, you can't ever prove that fo is not bar, because you might somehow later find a case in which the fo is bar.
Let's face it, you can't really prove anything absolutely. There will always be a certain amount of uncertainty about things. Deal with it.
Oh, don't worry, you're about to find out! Just watch, this will be followed and accompanied by a huge hype about cyber-terrorism, and will pass without a glitch. Haxors are the next target (by whatever name you want to call them).