Only asking folks what they do won't help if people are systematically underreporting. And in this case, if men or women under/over report at different rates, you may come to wrong conclusions about who does something more/less than the other.
E.g. people will tend to underreport the "vice time" they spend online. Perhaps men grossly underreport, while women are more honest.
You might think women spend more time on vice, when in reality they don't.
You can get a better idea by spying on some people, and polling them or a representative sample. But without the extra source of information, you only know what they told you.
How would you propose to get decent results just with a telephone poll?
The report is based on what people said to questioners on the phone. They don't really know if the people were telling the truth.
People have a variety of reasons to stretch the truth in phone interviews.
A better methodology is to watch people (without them knowing that you watch) -- then you get a better idea.
So if the Pew foundation wanted to see what folks do online, working with ISPs or botnet operators to spy on internet use would give a more accurate view of things.
Another option would be to use Alexas's browser plugin.
Yes, I will. You have no reason to think I won't, yet you say I won't, which is quite trollish.
I already explained to you "spooky action at a distance" is observed, but not sufficiently explained. When it is explained, I'm sure I'll hear about it and look into it.
And...you're not going to actively look for such information but instead you're just going to sit back and wait until you "hear about it" (even though quantum mechanics, while two generations old now, is only now geting reported significantly in the popular press).
The popular press is irrelevant, and you know it. The odds of me hearing about fundamental, sweeping advancement in the field are very high. This will be increasingly the case, as people find ways to apply the stuff to everyday things. On the whole, physics has little to do with what I work with. Algebra does, but not physics. So I spend my limited time focusing on algebra, not physics.
Making statements about Einstein vs. the physicists I worked with (and went to school with) is perfectly reasonable. If you've see mathematicians and physicists up close, you know they are different.
Einstein's prowess at thought experiments, and his concern with the consistency led to things like General Relativity -- and is quite typicaly of a mathematician. Lesser minds -- the more typical physicists -- can't do that.
I don't know or care (based on what you've written) who Ricky Gervais is. And I just call them MP3s, not "podcasts". I try to focus on the information (e.g. the content of the PDF, MP3 or.PS file) and not hte method of delivery: podcast, crapcast, etc.
I worked with some physicists who got out of it because there wasn't any money. One guy even did high energy particle physics. The high energy guy seemed to accept the quantum theory and just crank the math.
Now he cranks the solutions to the math and gets paid (in the non-physics sphere), but he's not doing physics.
I don't follow the research in physics. I'm not a physicist. I figure when someone comes up with a theory that settles things like decoherence, I'll hear about it and learn what I have to learn in order to understand the results.
I'm not going to bother with physics until then; there's too little payoff.
Thanks for the taxonomy! That makes a lot of sense.
Also, it makes me appreciate Isaac Newton a lot more. It is amazing how much physics he did -- e.g. optics and motion.
Most of the physicists I've met have been in the applied-math group. I don't think they were the most inqusitive folks -- but they were very smart and hardworking.
I must admit the pure theorists (Einstein included) tend to bug me.
One thing I got from the article is that physicists don't really care that the Quantum mechanics doesn't make sense at the macro level, nor that there isn't a clear boundary between big systems and quantum systems.
That's the whole point of the cat-in-a-box: if an electron can be superposed, why not a whole cat? And what does that say about reality, if the quantum theory makes no sense? E.g. our sense of reality says the cat is either alive or dead, not both. Hence, shouldn't an electron be one or the other? Q.T. says no.
That "why" issue is the sort of thing that troubled a philosopher-type like Einstiein --- someone who wonders "why?" compulsively is likely to keep on digging. The physicists seem happy to crunch the numbers, do an experiment and see if it agrees with the numbers.
Which is in keeping with my observations of physicists: they are essentially applied mathematicians. Mathematicians (like Einstein) are a different sort.
"Bukkake is the noun form of the Japanese verb bukkakeru (, to dash [water]), and means simply "splash" or "dash." The compound verb can be decomposed into two verbs: butsu () and kakeru (). Butsu literally means to hit, but in this usage it appears to be an intensive prefix as in buttamageru (, "completely astonished") or butchigiri (, "overwhelming win"). Kakeru in this context means to shower or pour. The word bukkake is often used in Japanese to describe pouring out water (or other liquids) with sufficient momentum to cause splashing.
Indeed, bukkake is more commonly used in Japan to describe a type of dish where the toppings are poured on top of noodles, as in bukkake-udon and bukkake-soba. Here the word presumably refers to the act of splashing fresh semen on a woman's face."
In case you didn't get it, my posting encoded a subtle joke: to laypersons, "broadband" means "really fast". Also to lay persons, bukkake is a kind of porn. To people who know the meanings of the words, they have different meanings.
"Bukkake is the noun form of the Japanese verb bukkakeru (, to dash [water]), and means simply "splash" or "dash." The compound verb can be decomposed into two verbs: butsu () and kakeru (). Butsu literally means to hit, but in this usage it appears to be an intensive prefix as in buttamageru (, "completely astonished") or butchigiri (, "overwhelming win"). Kakeru in this context means to shower or pour. The word bukkake is often used in Japanese to describe pouring out water (or other liquids) with sufficient momentum to cause splashing.
Indeed, bukkake is more commonly used in Japan to describe a type of dish where the toppings are poured on top of noodles, as in bukkake-udon and bukkake-soba. Here the word presumably refers to the act of splashing fresh semen on a woman's face."
The definition of broadband is specific: Broadband in general refers to data transmission where multiple pieces of data are sent simultaneously to increase the effective rate of transmission. In network engineering this term is used for methods where two or more signals share a medium.
Marketing are to blame for the confusing usage, where broadband means "really fast". This means we can look forward to terms like "ultrabroadband", "superbroadband", "megabroadband" and "bukkakebroadband" in the future (where "bukkake", meaning "to splash" in Japanese, will refer to a newer form of "spread spectrum").
For proof that marketing is to blame, see this link above and look for "confusing".
You read TFA and it turns out he's single, and he's living with his mom (well, mom lives in his giant housing compound, with him).
It must drive his mom nuts. No grandchildren. A genetic cul-de-sac. And he's one of the richest guys in the US? If he isn't gay, he's kinda screwing up here.
One would think that with all that money, he could just rent wombs from desperate women, impregnate them and so on. Then his mom would stop the nagging.
"I guess my answer is that yes, LUGs do still matter, but not as much as they did in the early days. They are not the primary drivers of Linux adoption that they once were. Improvements in the ease of installation of modern distributions, Linux's widespread adoption, and its acceptance as an enterprise tool have all combined to lessen the need for what LUGs offer. Today's LUG is less a vibrant beacon of a community of users and more of a professional/social club for admins."
There's been a lot of ambivalence at Berkeley in the past about it running labs like this. One line (not that I believe it) goes that it is better for the Univeristy involved than leave it strictly to the defense contractors.
I think it provides UC with some serious money and opportunity to do major research, so the geeks get attracted to it and tend to brush over any ethical concerns.
E.g. who else has the budget and inclination for some serious computin'?
Similar stuff happened at MIT in the beginning of computing. It was somehow harmless when it was just Ma Bell wanting telephone switching technology -- but the defense contractors have budgets and interesting requirements, so it is easy to look the other way.
They are going after HIV-1, the strain that affect Africans. He's also going after malaria and some other diseases that ruin the lives of the world's poorest inhabitants -- and that includes a lot of Africans.
I'm just trying to make a bang-for-the-buck argument:
Giving a dollar to a hopeless case: no lasting impact. Giving a dollar to someone with potential but who is short a dollar: big impact.
If you look at how business people like Soros and Bill Gates run things, they are making those sorts of tradeoffs all the time.
I would expect Bill to apply the same logic to his charities.
If he were to spend money identifying hi-IQ people and educating them, as the United States did during the space race (this caused the birth of meritocracy in the US, and the end of WASP priviledge), he'd probably be giving money to Chinese and Indians (and perhaps some poor Russians/Ukrainians).
That would be more likely to have an impact (good or bad) on the future. It is clear the changes the US created in its academic system, due to the space race, led to an incredible increase in welfare for Americans and others in general. We could have taken all that money and spent it to reduce guineau worm infectinos, leishmaniasis or malaria -- in the big scheme, it wouldn't have helped things much.
Giving help to desperately poor, ignorant people who have little hope of ever providing for themselves, much less producing anything that other humans will benefit from, is, by the logic of people like Soros and Bill Gates, a terrible waste of money.
I'm not being bigoted about this either: if Bill were being logical, he'd be giving the money to high-potential people who lack opportunities. That corresponds to poor people with high-IQs.
Not kits? How about components? Hardware hackers will be making money on the side selling stuff. Or maybe the Chinese will just make it and sell it.
Also, I remember how easy it was to mod a scanner in '93 to make it pick up cellphone signals -- just remove a single SMT resistor. This was the work of minutes. And voila -- full band reception.
So easily modded consumer goods (whatever that is) will be banned too.
"Analysts noted that like all Web-based services, Gmail has technically always been accessible from Web-ready mobile phones. But the Web version was often difficult to read on all but high-end mobile devices, with the browser window on smaller handhelds only displaying a part of the actual Web page."
"'This is mobile e-mail for the rest of us, who have normal or tiny screens,' said Kelsey Group managing editor Greg Sterling."
That's sounds really great for users -- that could be a truly decisive feature, for those who need email access on the road, but for some reason don't already own a blackberry.
Also, is there anyway that MicroSoft can beat back the Google threat on the mobile front, based on the fact that they make the OS that many of these phones use?
It seems that if there is a browser, Google can somehow deliver services to it. So the fact that Windows is on many of these phones won't mean much. I wouldn't put it past Gates or Ballmer to crippled the browser if they thought it would help though -- but that would really be cutting off their testicles to spite their penis. Or however that saying goes.
Bill's choices in charities don't make sense.
He's basically taken money from the first world (with monopolistic practices) and is busily pouring it down the blackhole of 3rd world charities.
The money that he pours into Africa gets stolen by the corrupt heads of the countries. As long as African truckers can buy whores for a few dollars at truck stops, they'll be having "dry sex" and spreading AIDs.
He could copy Soros and get more bang for the buck if he invested in somewhat less hopeless causes. I'm not saying I agree with Soros's goals; I'm just saying that he will likely have a greater effect on the world by spending money in places like Ukraine, Russia and Hungary.
Unless Bill can come up with a cure for AIDS that costs a few dollars to deliver to someone in the bush, all his AIDS-in-Africa charities won't do much. I figure Bill must know this, and figures that if he gives enough money to non-whites, liberal white people will think he's a good person.
On the other hand, I found out today that Google pays for pizza in the CS labs at various university's throughout the country. I think that's really impressive. They certainly have their eye on the prize!
The polar bears seem incredibly adapated to living on ice -- the article says they live their whole lives on ice. Their natural range is circumpolar (http://www.solcomhouse.com/polarbears.htm ). I know their feet, fur and sense of smell are all optimized for living in ice. I'm sure there are more things.
It seems that the next time the earth gets warm, for whatever reason, the polar bears are going to die off in droves.
The same is true for camels: they've got special eyes, feet, a way to store water and energy for long periods, etc. If there is ever a mass greening of the earth, wild camels will have a hard time.
More general animals, like brown bears ("grizzly" bears) have it differently: their problem is that they are adapted to living in Eurasia and North America, so they come into conflict with humans in nearly all the areas they'd like to be. Here's their range (it would all of North America and Europe, but for humans): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ursus_arctos_di stribution.jpg
If you look, you'll see brown bears live all over Alaska. That's where that bear-maniac Treadwell got mauled by them. There's now a movie about it, and it uses his amazing bear footage:
Emacs Pinky is real. The seeping generalization that RSI is not due to typing is incorrect.
If you don't use Emacs, just watch someone who does: his poor left pinky will be continually moving, depressing control keys. After doing that hours a day for months/years, he'll typically get RSI.
To get around this, it is common for Emacs users to map "Caps Lock" to a control key, so that the poor pinky doesn't have to continually press down in such an unnatural way (it will just have to move a key to the left and go down). But one you've ruined it, you can still get Emacs Pinky.
A simple way to check the hypothesis would be to just see how many vi users have "Emacs pinky" symptoms. I've never known a vi user with Emacs pinky. Given that "Emacs pinky" has been spontaneously identified and named, I think it is real, or at least worth spending effor to dismiss if you want to argue RSI is not due to typing.
Slashdot Mirror
Only asking folks what they do won't help if people are systematically underreporting. And in this case, if men or women under/over report at different rates, you may come to wrong conclusions about who does something more/less than the other.
E.g. people will tend to underreport the "vice time" they spend online. Perhaps men grossly underreport, while women are more honest.
You might think women spend more time on vice, when in reality they don't.
You can get a better idea by spying on some people, and polling them or a representative sample. But without the extra source of information, you only know what they told you.
How would you propose to get decent results just with a telephone poll?
The report is based on what people said to questioners on the phone.
They don't really know if the people were telling the truth.
People have a variety of reasons to stretch the truth in phone interviews.
A better methodology is to watch people (without them knowing that you watch) -- then you get a better idea.
So if the Pew foundation wanted to see what folks do online, working with ISPs or botnet operators to spy on internet use would give a more accurate view of things.
Another option would be to use Alexas's browser plugin.
No you won't.
.PS file) and not hte method of delivery: podcast, crapcast, etc.
Yes, I will. You have no reason to think I won't, yet you say I won't, which is quite trollish.
I already explained to you "spooky action at a distance" is observed, but not sufficiently explained. When it is explained, I'm sure I'll hear about it and look into it.
And...you're not going to actively look for such information but instead you're just going to sit back and wait until you "hear about it" (even though quantum mechanics, while two generations old now, is only now geting reported significantly in the popular press).
The popular press is irrelevant, and you know it. The odds of me hearing about fundamental, sweeping advancement in the field are very high. This will be increasingly the case, as people find ways to apply the stuff to everyday things. On the whole, physics has little to do with what I work with. Algebra does, but not physics. So I spend my limited time focusing on algebra, not physics.
Making statements about Einstein vs. the physicists I worked with (and went to school with) is perfectly reasonable. If you've see mathematicians and physicists up close, you know they are different.
Einstein's prowess at thought experiments, and his concern with the consistency led to things like General Relativity -- and is quite typicaly of a mathematician. Lesser minds -- the more typical physicists -- can't do that.
I don't know or care (based on what you've written) who Ricky Gervais is. And I just call them MP3s, not "podcasts". I try to focus on the information (e.g. the content of the PDF, MP3 or
I worked with some physicists who got out of it because there wasn't any money. One guy even did high energy particle physics. The high energy guy seemed to accept the quantum theory and just crank the math.
Now he cranks the solutions to the math and gets paid (in the non-physics sphere), but he's not doing physics.
I don't follow the research in physics. I'm not a physicist. I figure when someone comes up with a theory that settles things like decoherence, I'll hear about it and learn what I have to learn in order to understand the results.
I'm not going to bother with physics until then; there's too little payoff.
Thanks for the taxonomy! That makes a lot of sense.
Also, it makes me appreciate Isaac Newton a lot more. It is amazing how much physics he did -- e.g. optics and motion.
Most of the physicists I've met have been in the applied-math group. I don't think they were the most inqusitive folks -- but they were very smart and hardworking.
I must admit the pure theorists (Einstein included) tend to bug me.
One thing I got from the article is that physicists don't really care that the Quantum mechanics doesn't make sense at the macro level, nor that there isn't a clear boundary between big systems and quantum systems.
That's the whole point of the cat-in-a-box: if an electron can be superposed, why not a whole cat? And what does that say about reality, if the quantum theory makes no sense? E.g. our sense of reality says the cat is either alive or dead, not both. Hence, shouldn't an electron be one or the other? Q.T. says no.
That "why" issue is the sort of thing that troubled a philosopher-type like Einstiein --- someone who wonders "why?" compulsively is likely to keep on digging. The physicists seem happy to crunch the numbers, do an experiment and see if it agrees with the numbers.
Which is in keeping with my observations of physicists: they are essentially applied mathematicians. Mathematicians (like Einstein) are a different sort.
I'm suspecting that MicroSoft got some photos of this guy cavorting in a bathtub filled with mayonaise and a few attractive penguin prostitutes.
A few phone calls the guy resigned. Who wouldn't?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake
"Bukkake is the noun form of the Japanese verb bukkakeru (, to dash [water]), and means simply "splash" or "dash." The compound verb can be decomposed into two verbs: butsu () and kakeru (). Butsu literally means to hit, but in this usage it appears to be an intensive prefix as in buttamageru (, "completely astonished") or butchigiri (, "overwhelming win"). Kakeru in this context means to shower or pour. The word bukkake is often used in Japanese to describe pouring out water (or other liquids) with sufficient momentum to cause splashing.
Indeed, bukkake is more commonly used in Japan to describe a type of dish where the toppings are poured on top of noodles, as in bukkake-udon and bukkake-soba. Here the word presumably refers to the act of splashing fresh semen on a woman's face."
In case you didn't get it, my posting encoded a subtle joke: to laypersons, "broadband" means "really fast". Also to lay persons, bukkake is a kind of porn. To people who know the meanings of the words, they have different meanings.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake
"Bukkake is the noun form of the Japanese verb bukkakeru (, to dash [water]), and means simply "splash" or "dash." The compound verb can be decomposed into two verbs: butsu () and kakeru (). Butsu literally means to hit, but in this usage it appears to be an intensive prefix as in buttamageru (, "completely astonished") or butchigiri (, "overwhelming win"). Kakeru in this context means to shower or pour. The word bukkake is often used in Japanese to describe pouring out water (or other liquids) with sufficient momentum to cause splashing.
Indeed, bukkake is more commonly used in Japan to describe a type of dish where the toppings are poured on top of noodles, as in bukkake-udon and bukkake-soba. Here the word presumably refers to the act of splashing fresh semen on a woman's face."
I would hope that the ISP would set the policy, and not mandate mechanisms.
E.g. don't send spam, but run whatever you want to run.
In any case, I would think that if you want to run stuff badly enough, you'll find a way to spoof.
Until we get DRM, trusted boot and Palladium-like technologies everywhere --- then you won't be able to spoof your OS or software.
Don't you mean "couldn't care less"?
The definition of broadband is specific: Broadband in general refers to data transmission where multiple pieces of data are sent simultaneously to increase the effective rate of transmission. In network engineering this term is used for methods where two or more signals share a medium.
Marketing are to blame for the confusing usage, where broadband means "really fast". This means we can look forward to terms like "ultrabroadband", "superbroadband", "megabroadband" and "bukkakebroadband" in the future (where "bukkake", meaning "to splash" in Japanese, will refer to a newer form of "spread spectrum"). For proof that marketing is to blame, see this link above and look for "confusing".
You read TFA and it turns out he's single, and he's living with his mom (well, mom lives in his giant housing compound, with him).
It must drive his mom nuts. No grandchildren. A genetic cul-de-sac. And he's one of the richest guys in the US? If he isn't gay, he's kinda screwing up here.
One would think that with all that money, he could just rent wombs from desperate women, impregnate them and so on. Then his mom would stop the nagging.
From TFA:
"I guess my answer is that yes, LUGs do still matter, but not as much as they did in the early days. They are not the primary drivers of Linux adoption that they once were. Improvements in the ease of installation of modern distributions, Linux's widespread adoption, and its acceptance as an enterprise tool have all combined to lessen the need for what LUGs offer. Today's LUG is less a vibrant beacon of a community of users and more of a professional/social club for admins."
Yeah, sounds pretty reasonable to me.
The one where he's eating is my favorite: http://i.somethingawful.com/horrorsofporn/penishan ds/spaghetti.jpg
w ard_pen.html
And BTW, Depp says he liked the movie:
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/03/11/depp_digs_ed
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja& u=homepage.mac.com/sideriver/cubesite/ipodcase/ipo dcase.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2Barmor%2Bplated%2B ipod%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox%26rls%3D org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial
not the article though.
There's been a lot of ambivalence at Berkeley in the past about it running labs like this. One line (not that I believe it) goes that it is better for the Univeristy involved than leave it strictly to the defense contractors.
I think it provides UC with some serious money and opportunity to do major research, so the geeks get attracted to it and tend to brush over any ethical concerns.
E.g. who else has the budget and inclination for some serious computin'?
Similar stuff happened at MIT in the beginning of computing. It was somehow harmless when it was just Ma Bell wanting telephone switching technology -- but the defense contractors have budgets and interesting requirements, so it is easy to look the other way.
I figured they were targeting AIDS-in-Africa based on this stuff:h p
http://www.studentbmj.com/issues/01/03/news/51a.p
They are going after HIV-1, the strain that affect Africans. He's also going after malaria and some other diseases that ruin the lives of the world's poorest inhabitants -- and that includes a lot of Africans.
I'm just trying to make a bang-for-the-buck argument:
Giving a dollar to a hopeless case: no lasting impact.
Giving a dollar to someone with potential but who is short a dollar: big impact.
If you look at how business people like Soros and Bill Gates run things, they are making those sorts of tradeoffs all the time.
I would expect Bill to apply the same logic to his charities.
If he were to spend money identifying hi-IQ people and educating them, as the United States did during the space race (this caused the birth of meritocracy in the US, and the end of WASP priviledge), he'd probably be giving money to Chinese and Indians (and perhaps some poor Russians/Ukrainians).
That would be more likely to have an impact (good or bad) on the future. It is clear the changes the US created in its academic system, due to the space race, led to an incredible increase in welfare for Americans and others in general. We could have taken all that money and spent it to reduce guineau worm infectinos, leishmaniasis or malaria -- in the big scheme, it wouldn't have helped things much.
Giving help to desperately poor, ignorant people who have little hope of ever providing for themselves, much less producing anything that other humans will benefit from, is, by the logic of people like Soros and Bill Gates, a terrible waste of money.
I'm not being bigoted about this either: if Bill were being logical, he'd be giving the money to high-potential people who lack opportunities. That corresponds to poor people with high-IQs.
So it applies to consumer electronics.
Not kits? How about components? Hardware hackers will be making money on the side selling stuff. Or maybe the Chinese will just make it and sell it.
Also, I remember how easy it was to mod a scanner in '93 to make it pick up cellphone signals -- just remove a single SMT resistor. This was the work of minutes. And voila -- full band reception.
So easily modded consumer goods (whatever that is) will be banned too.
This looks to be tough to enforce.
"Analysts noted that like all Web-based services, Gmail has technically always been accessible from Web-ready mobile phones. But the Web version was often difficult to read on all but high-end mobile devices, with the browser window on smaller handhelds only displaying a part of the actual Web page."
"'This is mobile e-mail for the rest of us, who have normal or tiny screens,' said Kelsey Group managing editor Greg Sterling."
That's sounds really great for users -- that could be a truly decisive feature, for those who need email access on the road, but for some reason don't already own a blackberry.
Also, is there anyway that MicroSoft can beat back the Google threat on the mobile front, based on the fact that they make the OS that many of these phones use?
It seems that if there is a browser, Google can somehow deliver services to it. So the fact that Windows is on many of these phones won't mean much. I wouldn't put it past Gates or Ballmer to crippled the browser if they thought it would help though -- but that would really be cutting off their testicles to spite their penis. Or however that saying goes.
Bill's choices in charities don't make sense. He's basically taken money from the first world (with monopolistic practices) and is busily pouring it down the blackhole of 3rd world charities.
The money that he pours into Africa gets stolen by the corrupt heads of the countries. As long as African truckers can buy whores for a few dollars at truck stops, they'll be having "dry sex" and spreading AIDs.
He could copy Soros and get more bang for the buck if he invested in somewhat less hopeless causes. I'm not saying I agree with Soros's goals; I'm just saying that he will likely have a greater effect on the world by spending money in places like Ukraine, Russia and Hungary.
Unless Bill can come up with a cure for AIDS that costs a few dollars to deliver to someone in the bush, all his AIDS-in-Africa charities won't do much. I figure Bill must know this, and figures that if he gives enough money to non-whites, liberal white people will think he's a good person.
On the other hand, I found out today that Google pays for pizza in the CS labs at various university's throughout the country. I think that's really impressive. They certainly have their eye on the prize!
The polar bears seem incredibly adapated to living on ice -- the article says they live their whole lives on ice. Their natural range is circumpolar (http://www.solcomhouse.com/polarbears.htm ). I know their feet, fur and sense of smell are all optimized for living in ice. I'm sure there are more things.
i stribution.jpg
It seems that the next time the earth gets warm, for whatever reason, the polar bears are going to die off in droves.
The same is true for camels: they've got special eyes, feet, a way to store water and energy for long periods, etc. If there is ever a mass greening of the earth, wild camels will have a hard time.
More general animals, like brown bears ("grizzly" bears) have it differently: their problem is that they are adapted to living in Eurasia and North America, so they come into conflict with humans in nearly all the areas they'd like to be. Here's their range (it would all of North America and Europe, but for humans):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ursus_arctos_d
If you look, you'll see brown bears live all over Alaska. That's where that bear-maniac Treadwell got mauled by them. There's now a movie about it, and it uses his amazing bear footage:
http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/10725/
That's a most Talmudic workaround.
Congratulations!
Emacs Pinky is real. The seeping generalization that RSI is not due to typing is incorrect.
If you don't use Emacs, just watch someone who does: his poor left pinky will be continually moving, depressing control keys. After doing that hours a day for months/years, he'll typically get RSI.
To get around this, it is common for Emacs users to map "Caps Lock" to a control key, so that the poor pinky doesn't have to continually press down in such an unnatural way (it will just have to move a key to the left and go down). But one you've ruined it, you can still get Emacs Pinky.
A simple way to check the hypothesis would be to just see how many vi users have "Emacs pinky" symptoms. I've never known a vi user with Emacs pinky. Given that "Emacs pinky" has been spontaneously identified and named, I think it is real, or at least worth spending effor to dismiss if you want to argue RSI is not due to typing.
If the banks actually beef things up, the next wave of attacks will likley be pharming, as it allows the bad guys to circumvent the bank's methods:
t ml
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,66853,00.h