yeah, my girlfriend lived in Europe for a few years after college; and was shocked about how much cheaper cell phones are there. My thinking that part of the reason is that it's easier to change cell plans there without changing your phone; ie don't you just need a new crystal(transmitter card) and all? I think that fact, that you need a new phone here, is part of the reason they've been able to keep prices up.
Oh well...
although technically, didn't we during the revolution and the war of 1812? Do I remember that right? Technically, it was part of GB, but...
we lost, right? doh!
dead on. I'd simply stop buying the stuff. It's not even about the piracy part. I've stopped going to movies that often here in NYC; I'm sorry but $12 to see a movie is a bit much with how obnoxious people are becoming...
I think it would be more efficient if the people who go to the gym instead would just put on a pair of running shoes and would not have to exercise in a room that had not to be lit and heated for the purpose of them having a place to exercise.
That's making the assumption that most people use the gym for those machines. In my gym, that is to say the one I use here in Manhattan, only about 1/3 of the gym is set aside for that. The other 2/3 is used for weight training and aerobics classes. Also, in many urban places, it's a safety issue. It's not safe to run at night in the parks or along the streets, when most people have time, in most of this city; particularly for women. Running on the streets is not that much fun; I do it when it's warm enough, but not when their's ice or rain. It's too slippery, and you're too likely to get hit by a cab. Beyond that, many people can't run, and must use some of the lower impact alternatives for their cardiovascular workouts. I figure your argument works fine in the suburbs, though. Where I grew up, north of NYC, it would be fine; even in the bad weather. I certainly enjoyed running in all kinds of weather/times of the year back then.
Aside from that, I agree 100% on your energy efficiency comments. I switched to CFLs, and am happy with it.
Perfection may never come out of the design facility and there are unavoidable risks in any endeavour and those that could and should be avoided. This one is, clearly, one that should have been discovered long ago, when the first prototypes were built. The problem is one of attitude - someone is not taking his/her job seriously enough and, by saying that some mistakes are unavoidable, you make the problem look less serious. Worse: It makes any report on how flawed the process is sound like a criticism on the whole air-force and be dismissed as such.
I did work on the F-22 program as one of my active duty assignments. My point is that, while I agree that this is a stupid error, and one that is embarrassing for that matter, that it's wrong to say that the military/civilian folks who are working on it don't care. You're wrong. These people do, but they do make mistakes. Few groups take their jobs more seriously when they know that a software/hardware error will kill someone. I think your perception is wrong. Do you have any idea how much more complex the F-22 is than any single piece of consumer electronics? Do you know how many other considerations there are to take into account? The problem I have with your comments, besides your attitude that is coming across, is that you've clearly never worked on something on this scale. I was one of 30 engineers simply testing the avionics integration, before one piece of hardware was built. There was years of testing by literally hundreds of engineers, but things to get missed.
This is not a minor thing. This is BAD, but to say that the people don't care is wrong. Good people with integrity still make mistakes.
Your Feynman quote only proves that you don't know how these people are. Many of them, like myself, know some of the men and women who are or will be flying these things.
These errors should be public, and the Air Force/contractors should be embarrassed. This is bad, but to say the folks who worked on it don't care is just as wrong.
But if you had to use a helicopter today, would you choose an Osprey or a Chinook?
It isn't so much the amount of money that went into it, or the number of problems that it had. What should have killed it was the incident with falsifying maintenance records. Who knows at this point how safe they really are?
you make a fair and valid point. Still, all that I've heard in the last couple of years has been encouraging. I honestly believe that the problems have been fixed, but I am not close to the project; I easily could be wrong. Still, the Chinook is not the greatest thing either; nor is the MH/CH-53. They have their problems too.
I'd take the Osprey if it was my life on the line. It does have a lot of advantages, and again the program seems to have fixed the problems.
Look at the problems the Osprey has had. They still plan to deploy them to Iraq this year.
yes, the V-22 Osprey had a lot of troubles, but they turned it into a viable aircraft. It's now quite stable, and reliable. The Harrier jet was probably the worst overall; in terms of lives lost/number of pilots. That's why we didn't use it original version, but "suped" it up to be the Harrier 2; while the Brits still use the more dangerous Harrier 1.
It's completely unacceptable - and quite alarming - to see a plane malfunction like that on its first deployment.
You are wrong. Clearly you don't know about these things. I, having been in the Air Force, do. Every new platform has problems. You think the F-16 is great, right? Well, it was our first fly-by-wire jet, and it had problems with it's wire harnesses that led to a lot of crashes. There was even a Hollywood movie that dramatized one event; I forget the name. I hate to say it, but this is normal.
Let's go farther back. The B-24 Liberator was a great bomber of WWII. We built thousands of them. In the beginning, they killed dozens of pilots, from training accidents, that it was called a widow-maker. Or, the venerable P-51, that was crap until we put in the British Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, after that, it became the best fighter we produced in the war, and arguably one of the best ever.
I could go on and on. The point is that these are complicated machines, and not everything can be tested out in the lab. That's why we do flight and deployment tests. You can't think of everything ahead of time.
This is why we have those Tiger Teams. It's the most effective way to solve problems. But, you may not have read the article.
Also, if you think the Air Force is the only one with issues like this, think again. Check out what happened with the M-16 when they created that.
It would be great if accidents never happened, but you can't think of everything ahead of time. Things were worse before. In the 50-60s, they lost tons of test pilots, but things are better now, and it's a rare event for someone to die that way. After all, Edwards Air Force base is named after one such unlucky test pilot. They dramatize it well in the movie The Right Stuff
The big thing that I'm railing against here is this attitude that things should be perfect coming out of the design facility. Sure one could do that, but it would take so long it would not be worth it. Some risk is okay, but then the acceptance of that is why I enjoy such things as downhill skiing, swimming in the ocean, driving. I don't like it when people talk about a no risk. This is not a computer lab!
No, it's a real shame because the bulbs that Walmart sells are complete and utter crap. When outfitting our new home with CF's, we bought some Philips bulbs at Home Depot. I think it was 6 bulbs for $5. They work great. They're fairly bright [they make brighter but I prefer a dimmer environment], and they turn on instantly. Recently my wife bought a pack of CF bulbs [GE I think] from Walmart. I don't know what she paid for them. It's a bright bulb but it takes like 2-3 seconds to turn on. It's terribly annoying and certainly not going to leave a good impression on folks who are thinking of switching.
Well that sucks! I was hoping for better. I buy mine online, and don't go to Walmart. I'm not a Walmart hater; it's just that there aren't any near me here in Manhattan.
Oh well....
How do you feel about Walmart's plan to sell lots of them in their stores, and to try to change peoples opinions on them?
Me, I use the CFLs and like the slightly lower energy bill I get, at $0.25 a KWH in NYC, it does add over the year. I think Walmart's plan will lower the cost of the bulbs and at the same time make more people aware of them. Doing that might make them get higher use in the the country without some more useless regulations. Walmart may be doing it for good PR, or because it makes business sense, but who cares the reason. It is better if more people use them.
I'm not looking for a flame war, just your opinion.
The obvious and total failure of DRM'ed e-books should have warned them: Take a medium that consumers view as a tangible product, that they can buy and sell in an aftermarket, and try to turn it into a limited, licensed, revocable, non-transferable right-to-use at a not particularly attractive price - and it should succeed?
good point... I buy ebooks from an scifi paper and ebook publisher, this is not an ad, so I won't put their name here, that doesn't add drm. They actually make it available in pdf, M$reader, and TEXT format. Plus you can download it again and again; so long as you've paid for it once. The system works for me, and I believe they are making money on it, as the cheaper price(as compared to the same title they offer in paperback), allows me to buy more books.
I'm not familiar with the deep ocean data or the Argosy project. Do you have references?
I typed that wrong... http://www.argo.net/
My mind is open, but I think solar makes more sense to explain the warming before the modern era. Solar explains the little ice age, along with the other warm periods in the last 2000 years or so. Also, the sulphates that you are referring to are primarily the product of volcanoes. Man makes a lot, but not a lot compared to that. That's why we had short temporary coolings after the recent eruptions; Mt. Pinatubo is a well documented example. They do not explain the cooling for the whole 30 years, there simply wasn't enough volcanism to explain that. Besides, it's gone up in the last few decades.
As for the rest, I disagree with you. It's good enough for me to say that you've given me a few things to look at more closely.
I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't happening, but I'm not convinced that CO2 is the sole and main cause.
CO2 definitely is not the sole cause. It is, however, the main cause of the warming in the 20th century, particularly in the last 40 years. See, for instance, Fig. SPM-2 in the IPCC AR4 SPM [www.ipcc.ch] (PDF). At different points in history, different factors have been the primary drivers of climate change. Right now, it happens to be CO2, largely due to anthropogenic emissions since the Industrial Revolution.
You made a good argument. I'll look into that.
Still, if you limit the data to the 20th century, then the graphs are not in sync. Most of the warming was in the early part of the century followed by that cooling period from about 46-75ish, and then some warming again after that. Also, there seems to be a pause in the warming since 2000 where AGT hasn't done much other than fluctuate a bit. Also, the deep ocean data doesn't seem to fit with the models either. None of the recent work of the Argosy project was included in the report. That's another reason why I'm still not convinced.
Also, this article, and the work behind it, which I heard about back in October, has experimental proof of how their cloud formation works. Solar intensity is increasing, and has increased over the last few decades, as we've been able to confirm directly with the satellites. The Solar theory has enough merit to question the CO2 theory in my mind; at least for a few more years.
>there is a well established correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
It's a superb correlation, the curves track each other amazingly.
I disagree with you there. That's only true in Mann's data with that hockey stick, and that was shown to be rubbish. The other problem is that it doesn't explain the other cold and warm periods in the last 2000 years. In Roman times they grew grapes in England, and yet you can't even today.
I'm not saying that Global Warming isn't happening, but I'm not convinced that CO2 is the sole and main cause.
One has to wonder if this will work in iraq. If the air is already 130 degrees F, will this device make a difference? Or will it heat up people too much and induce heat stroke or burns?
I'm no doctor, but that seems reasonable to me. My impression is that it increases the ambient local temperature on the skin X number of degrees, causing the effect. By that logic, I could see it giving people minor burns, but probably not heatstroke. Still, I would think it would not be worse than a sunburn, and either way, that's still better than a bullet.
That adds up to fewer "collateral" losses of innocents and more flexibility for our troops. Whatever your human rights concerns, aren't the consequences of not having such a system worse?
Exactly. The standard is not perfection, but the alternative. In most cases, their only alternative is a gun. Sure water cannons are great when you have access to lots of water, but that isn't the case in Iraq for instance.
Well, attacking a vessel over international waters is piracy. I wonder what shooting a satellite with a space based weapon would be called?
That's only true if you are not a government sponsored group. If uniformed military personnel attack a naval vessel at sea or in port; regardless of which country the port is in, it's an act of war. If you are not a uniformed military group, then it's piracy. According to international law, it's all about who does it and why. If the US Navy, via SEALS, a destroyer, or an aircraft, fires on any ship of any foreign nation, military or civilian target, then the US has committed an act of war. If 3 guys from Jersey do it, say three guys like me who want a PS3, so we try to rip off a cargo ship for one even if we use the same tactics as SEALS would, then that's piracy. The difference being that the 3 of us are not members of the US military. The Geneva convention states that to be not considered a terrorist or a pirate, you must wear some identifying clothing to separate you from the general public; a red bandanna would be enough; ironically, gang colors do meet the criteria.
Shooting anything with a spaced based weapon would be a violation of international law, since simply putting the weapon in space is the violation. That's why the US, China, Russia, and probably several other nations have ground, sea, and air based weapons to destroy satellites. I don't think you know as much as you think you do about these things.
If the satellite is over foreign soil is it really an act of war if the satellite is shot down for trespassing? Is discovering and killing an enemy spy on your soil an act of war?
Just like the concept of international waters for the ocean, so is space governed by a treaty. The physics of space flight prevent the possibility of putting something into orbit, even geosynchronous, without crossing other nations first. Hence, the treaty allowing all countries access to space above all countries. I don't know the exact altitude that the treaty specifies, but I'll bet it's about 60 miles or so. This is why the US and the USSR never went to war for the hundreds of spy sattelites we both put up over the last few decades
Granted, considering the treaty also bans weapons in space, attacking a weaponized satellite would likely not be a problem.
Another point that you seem to be missing is the great value that spying of that nature for preventing war. Think about it, it was a U-2 that proved the Russians had missiles on Cuba. That incident, where the Russians removed their missiles from Cuba, was responsible for the US removing missiles from Turkey; just as close to Russia as Cuba is to the US. Further, there were many men in the American government who believed that there was a "missile gap" with the Russians. Spy planes proved that too was false, preventing an American buildup and first-strike which was talked about. Now I see how a country would be angry about allowing spy planes from another country to fly overhead since a camera could easily be replaced with a nuke, and how would you know the nuke is not there. But, that's much harder to do with a satellite. Further, satellites are easy to see with radars, and thanks again to gravity, they follow predictable orbits. This prevents a lot of the surprises that aircraft can give a defending country.
So the big point is that a spy on the ground, or a plane in the air, can be a surprise. A satellite can not. They are few, and launches are public information; even if the payload isn't, allowing foreign governments to track it from launch time. It may be a fine distinction, but it is one that is accepted. There are plenty of foreign satellites over all countries used for spying and the like. Even countries that don't have launch capabilities can and do pay those that do to launch satellites for them, or they buy the data from those that do.
I approve of spying, and I believe that it helps keep the peace; particularly when you know the other guy is as strong as you are, or strong enough to make you hold back your own forces. It's the not knowing of that that often leads to horrible wars.
If another country launched a spy satellite and the US destroyed it, it wouldn't be terrorism, it would be self-defense. Why would it be any different the other way around?
I disagree. I'd call it an act of war. Terrorism is more about blowing up civilians and such assets. Attacking military assets, or personnel, is more an act of war. It's only terrorism when attacking government or military assets when the attacker is not sponsored by a state.
Honestly, hasn't this joke been worn out; even on/.? Whomever modded this comment up made a mistake. Please think of something original. I agree with your sentiment, but am tired of the lame joke that's been overused; even if it was funny the first few times I've seen it here on/..
I definitely think it is a good time for people to start investigating the possible bias on this issue, as those who are lobbying government for changes in policy on industry are going to start having serious economic effects (on both companies and the country as a whole) without the majority of the public being aware that global warming is a theory, and not fact, but hey - if global warming is the accepted theory, i'm happy to reduce the methane levels in the atmosphere by eating more steak, heh.
I agree completely. To further that end, consider a few other things that have crossed my mind. The scientific consensus has been wrong before. Before Copernicus and Galileo, everyone knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Before Columbus, everyone knew the world was flat; note I know that several civilizations other than Europeans knew this already, but bare with me as I'm making a point here. Before Hubble, the man not the telescope, everyone knew that the universe was static. Even Einstein himself was wrong on that one for a while.
Take a more recent debate; what killed the dinosaurs. For a while, everyone knew that it was a bunch of volcanoes that did them in. Then they knew it was climate change. Then they knew it was 1 comet/meteor impact in the Yucatan. Then they knew that they were dying out already due to changes in the climate and biosphere(rise of the flowering plants). Just a few days ago, I've heard that new evidence supports the single impact theory again.
My point is that the consensus is often wrong. I think is most important to keep an open mind, and to give credit to the fringe ideas. They often prove to be correct.
The moral of the story is be paranoid, ask for ID, make people sign in, never ever trust some one who just shows up and make sure all visitors are escorted at all times.
I made the mistake of dropping my business card in one of those "free lunch at this restaurant" things. A few weeks later some guy calls me up and starts asking about my company, phone numbers of folks, jobs available, etc. Curious, I asked how he got my name and number, before answering any of his questions. Then he blatantly lied by saying how I gave him it at the employment bazaar at the Garden; Madison Square Garden. There was one there at the time, but I hadn't gone to it. I said as much, and he backtracked a bit and said that I had just stopped by. Again, I said that I didn't. At which point, I said that I couldn't trust him since I've caught him in a lie, and that I suggest he contact us via our website or the 800 number posted on it that I was happy to give him over the phone. At that point, he just hung up. I have to say that I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Something else that happens a lot, I work in the software engineering department at a mid-size company, I get phone calls with folks asking about projects. Now, if I recognize the person as someone who works with me, then I'm cool, of course. The problem is that I get a few calls a year where I don't, and they're fishy. That is to say that I simply ask them for their contact information, and that I'd get back to them. The call usually goes to the effect of "Mr. X, our contact at your company is not available. Can you tell us what's going on?" Innocuous, right? Well, I, and this is almost always true since I really am aware of the status of only the stuff I'm working on, tell them I'm not sure, so let me have Mr. X get back to you. I add in that I promise that I will make sure Mr. X contacts you today, and that I too will contact them back after I speak to him to ensure that he does in fact call them back. Here's where the funny smell comes in, they don't want to give me a number to call. They just want the info. They just shy off, and say something like they'll leave another message. My response, in case they really are customers, is to tell them that I'll go find Mr. X, walk to his desk, etc, and make sure I find out what's up. I have never had one person in one of these calls that I felt were fishy ask me to do that. The truth is that our sales/product folks are very good about getting back to our clients quickly, so I'm not aware of a case where a client is in the dark long enough that they'd need to call. We may need more development time than they want, but that's a different story.
What's the moral of the story? Never drop you business card off in one of those things, unless you want these calls and the good laugh that I usually get from them!
$2000.00 cash and you can pay off the cleaning service people to let you in dressed as them. EASILY, sometime for far less. those people are so underpaid yet have access to the most secure parts of the company you can get in, get past the security guards without a second look and you are allowed to root around in secure areas on camera as you are supposed to be under each desk cleaning out trash.
or do what we did at my intelligence unit... have one of our workers watching them while they work. It's easy to protect against that stuff, but you have to spend manpower to do it.
Ever look at their shop? It's forever a MESS! Half-constructed doo-dads all over the place! Messes aren't just not bad, they are frequently a good indicator that something real is actually taking place!
Only Adam likes the mess. It pisses Jamie off. I do agree that messes are great, and that parents should encourage that raw unstructured experimentation. Look back, or around, to the greatest scientists and engineers, and you'll find messy tinkerers.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, my girlfriend lived in Europe for a few years after college; and was shocked about how much cheaper cell phones are there. My thinking that part of the reason is that it's easier to change cell plans there without changing your phone; ie don't you just need a new crystal(transmitter card) and all? I think that fact, that you need a new phone here, is part of the reason they've been able to keep prices up.
Oh well...
LET'S INVADE CANADA!!!
...
jk...
although technically, didn't we during the revolution and the war of 1812? Do I remember that right? Technically, it was part of GB, but
we lost, right? doh!
dead on. I'd simply stop buying the stuff. It's not even about the piracy part. I've stopped going to movies that often here in NYC; I'm sorry but $12 to see a movie is a bit much with how obnoxious people are becoming. ..
man, I'm getting old...
get off the grass sonny
All hail the new King!
Aside from that, I agree 100% on your energy efficiency comments. I switched to CFLs, and am happy with it.
This is not a minor thing. This is BAD, but to say that the people don't care is wrong. Good people with integrity still make mistakes.
Your Feynman quote only proves that you don't know how these people are. Many of them, like myself, know some of the men and women who are or will be flying these things.
These errors should be public, and the Air Force/contractors should be embarrassed. This is bad, but to say the folks who worked on it don't care is just as wrong.
I'd take the Osprey if it was my life on the line. It does have a lot of advantages, and again the program seems to have fixed the problems.
The Harrier jet was probably the worst overall; in terms of lives lost/number of pilots. That's why we didn't use it original version, but "suped" it up to be the Harrier 2; while the Brits still use the more dangerous Harrier 1.
Let's go farther back. The B-24 Liberator was a great bomber of WWII. We built thousands of them. In the beginning, they killed dozens of pilots, from training accidents, that it was called a widow-maker. Or, the venerable P-51, that was crap until we put in the British Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, after that, it became the best fighter we produced in the war, and arguably one of the best ever.
I could go on and on. The point is that these are complicated machines, and not everything can be tested out in the lab. That's why we do flight and deployment tests. You can't think of everything ahead of time.
This is why we have those Tiger Teams. It's the most effective way to solve problems. But, you may not have read the article.
Also, if you think the Air Force is the only one with issues like this, think again. Check out what happened with the M-16 when they created that.
It would be great if accidents never happened, but you can't think of everything ahead of time. Things were worse before. In the 50-60s, they lost tons of test pilots, but things are better now, and it's a rare event for someone to die that way. After all, Edwards Air Force base is named after one such unlucky test pilot. They dramatize it well in the movie The Right Stuff
The big thing that I'm railing against here is this attitude that things should be perfect coming out of the design facility. Sure one could do that, but it would take so long it would not be worth it. Some risk is okay, but then the acceptance of that is why I enjoy such things as downhill skiing, swimming in the ocean, driving. I don't like it when people talk about a no risk. This is not a computer lab!
Oh well....
How do you feel about Walmart's plan to sell lots of them in their stores, and to try to change peoples opinions on them?
Me, I use the CFLs and like the slightly lower energy bill I get, at $0.25 a KWH in NYC, it does add over the year. I think Walmart's plan will lower the cost of the bulbs and at the same time make more people aware of them. Doing that might make them get higher use in the the country without some more useless regulations. Walmart may be doing it for good PR, or because it makes business sense, but who cares the reason. It is better if more people use them.
I'm not looking for a flame war, just your opinion.
I hope more go this way!
My mind is open, but I think solar makes more sense to explain the warming before the modern era. Solar explains the little ice age, along with the other warm periods in the last 2000 years or so. Also, the sulphates that you are referring to are primarily the product of volcanoes. Man makes a lot, but not a lot compared to that. That's why we had short temporary coolings after the recent eruptions; Mt. Pinatubo is a well documented example. They do not explain the cooling for the whole 30 years, there simply wasn't enough volcanism to explain that. Besides, it's gone up in the last few decades.
As for the rest, I disagree with you. It's good enough for me to say that you've given me a few things to look at more closely.
Still, if you limit the data to the 20th century, then the graphs are not in sync. Most of the warming was in the early part of the century followed by that cooling period from about 46-75ish, and then some warming again after that. Also, there seems to be a pause in the warming since 2000 where AGT hasn't done much other than fluctuate a bit. Also, the deep ocean data doesn't seem to fit with the models either. None of the recent work of the Argosy project was included in the report. That's another reason why I'm still not convinced.
Also, this article, and the work behind it, which I heard about back in October, has experimental proof of how their cloud formation works. Solar intensity is increasing, and has increased over the last few decades, as we've been able to confirm directly with the satellites. The Solar theory has enough merit to question the CO2 theory in my mind; at least for a few more years.
Shooting anything with a spaced based weapon would be a violation of international law, since simply putting the weapon in space is the violation. That's why the US, China, Russia, and probably several other nations have ground, sea, and air based weapons to destroy satellites.
I don't think you know as much as you think you do about these things.
Granted, considering the treaty also bans weapons in space, attacking a weaponized satellite would likely not be a problem.
Another point that you seem to be missing is the great value that spying of that nature for preventing war. Think about it, it was a U-2 that proved the Russians had missiles on Cuba. That incident, where the Russians removed their missiles from Cuba, was responsible for the US removing missiles from Turkey; just as close to Russia as Cuba is to the US. Further, there were many men in the American government who believed that there was a "missile gap" with the Russians. Spy planes proved that too was false, preventing an American buildup and first-strike which was talked about. Now I see how a country would be angry about allowing spy planes from another country to fly overhead since a camera could easily be replaced with a nuke, and how would you know the nuke is not there. But, that's much harder to do with a satellite. Further, satellites are easy to see with radars, and thanks again to gravity, they follow predictable orbits. This prevents a lot of the surprises that aircraft can give a defending country.
So the big point is that a spy on the ground, or a plane in the air, can be a surprise. A satellite can not. They are few, and launches are public information; even if the payload isn't, allowing foreign governments to track it from launch time. It may be a fine distinction, but it is one that is accepted. There are plenty of foreign satellites over all countries used for spying and the like. Even countries that don't have launch capabilities can and do pay those that do to launch satellites for them, or they buy the data from those that do.
I approve of spying, and I believe that it helps keep the peace; particularly when you know the other guy is as strong as you are, or strong enough to make you hold back your own forces. It's the not knowing of that that often leads to horrible wars.
Take a more recent debate; what killed the dinosaurs. For a while, everyone knew that it was a bunch of volcanoes that did them in. Then they knew it was climate change. Then they knew it was 1 comet/meteor impact in the Yucatan. Then they knew that they were dying out already due to changes in the climate and biosphere(rise of the flowering plants). Just a few days ago, I've heard that new evidence supports the single impact theory again.
My point is that the consensus is often wrong. I think is most important to keep an open mind, and to give credit to the fringe ideas. They often prove to be correct.
Something else that happens a lot, I work in the software engineering department at a mid-size company, I get phone calls with folks asking about projects. Now, if I recognize the person as someone who works with me, then I'm cool, of course. The problem is that I get a few calls a year where I don't, and they're fishy. That is to say that I simply ask them for their contact information, and that I'd get back to them. The call usually goes to the effect of "Mr. X, our contact at your company is not available. Can you tell us what's going on?" Innocuous, right? Well, I, and this is almost always true since I really am aware of the status of only the stuff I'm working on, tell them I'm not sure, so let me have Mr. X get back to you. I add in that I promise that I will make sure Mr. X contacts you today, and that I too will contact them back after I speak to him to ensure that he does in fact call them back. Here's where the funny smell comes in, they don't want to give me a number to call. They just want the info. They just shy off, and say something like they'll leave another message. My response, in case they really are customers, is to tell them that I'll go find Mr. X, walk to his desk, etc, and make sure I find out what's up. I have never had one person in one of these calls that I felt were fishy ask me to do that. The truth is that our sales/product folks are very good about getting back to our clients quickly, so I'm not aware of a case where a client is in the dark long enough that they'd need to call. We may need more development time than they want, but that's a different story.
What's the moral of the story? Never drop you business card off in one of those things, unless you want these calls and the good laugh that I usually get from them!