Virus Scares and False Authority Syndrome 322
Fifth of Five writes: "Ran across this article on the IS-IT-TRUE.org site regarding False Authority Syndrome and the spread of virus misinformation by the media, users and Folks Who Probably Ought To Know Better. If you've ever watched the TV news and gritted your teeth over what is being presented as 'fact' this may shine some light on just how it got to be like this."
Virus Myths site (Score:1)
The "False Authority Syndrome" article itself is at least 5 years old...
color me redundant.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not tryint to flamebait, but it was a pretty well known fact that in the clinton WH press corp, if you asked the pres a tough or 'offtopic' question, guess what, unless you were from one of the big 6, your pass got pulled and good luck getting a interview again.... basically what it boils down to is you can never tell when the press is full of it. hell, they cant even get traffic reports right (accident at main and elm with injuries....right after i just drove by and all i saw was some homeless dude...).... sorry, im ranting now
You either walk the walk, or talk the talk ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Fortunately we have some countervailing examples
LL
The economic models which are the equivalent of yelling "fire" as loudly as possible to rush people to newsfeeds are creating some really bad incentives
It's a pain, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
I set up filters, I block the sending and receiving of all
Know why? After the 4th one I send back to them with an URL [nai.com] and a "Thanks, but that one was a hoax", they start to catch on (well... many of them do). Some also start to forward any and all messages with attached files to me if they weren't expecting them. Again, many here may cringe, my email box is huge and I spend hours each day weeding through false alarms sometimes. But IMHO it's worth it.
Do you know how many actual FULL outbreaks this company has seen in the last year? One. Back in November of last year. It was Navidad [nai.com] and it was sent to a Hispanic employee (the CFO actually... hehehehe) from a relative, and since it was near Xmas, well, I forgave him. AFTER I made HIM clean out his own machine and then lambasted him in front of the entire company. But when people first saw the SIRCAM [nai.com] virus come in, even users who had not read my warnings yet spotted it instantly and sent it to me. This was before I'd set our mail server to send all messages with "I hope you like the file that I sendo you" in the body to
All things considered, though, seeing as this office is almost entirely Windows, I think my methods work. Yes, it's time consuming. Yes, it can be annoying. BUT, I rarely have to restore from backup, and we haven't had any major outbreaks.
That is an old article... (Score:1)
Circa. 1996?
Makes sense, there was an article on slashdot today about the Next cubes...
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
Journalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Journalism.... (Score:2)
BTW, I'm an expert on Slashdotters.
blaming the "media" again (Score:2)
Everyone is blaming the media for not understanding computers. Are you making any effort to help them understand? I know it's popular to be cynical and claim that reporters are idiots/biased/bought, but in reality they are very busy and provide shallow coverage of many domains. Those who take the time to talk to reporters eventually get their ideas and viewpoint represented. Those who just sit there and chuck rotten vegetables will always be excluded.
We seem to be the only group that has not figured out how to communicate with reporters. Retired people, cops, farmers, insurance salesmen, teachers - all of these have taken the effort to establish communications with the press and make sure that their side of the story gets told.
So, if you give a damn, find out who the technology reporter is for your local paper and contact him. But first read some of his stuff so you understand what is and isn't interesting to him. See if you've got material for a story. If not, at least he might contact you for a quote on the next virus scare/whatever.
Re:blaming the "media" again (Score:1)
They still do it.
The media are, in general, scaremongers.
More power to Chris Morris and Brass Eye.
(BBC News Article [bbc.co.uk])
"hey. i got the file thanx." (Score:2)
Re:"hey. i got the file thanx." (Score:2)
Our domain of knowledge (Score:4, Funny)
Being knowledgable of technical stuff like "what viruses can really do" is the specific domain of knowledge we slashdot readers have. This makes me wonder, not being an expert on many other things, just how much mis-information is propagated through the news. I never watch the news anymore. All you see are disaster reports and attempts to make 40-year-old, middle-class americans paranoid of something.
Possible TV News Headlines:Re:Our domain of knowledge (Score:1)
a. who owns the land being debate?
b. who has the contract on the cutting of said timber?
c. if public record, then check to see if that contract holder has made any donations to that districts politicians.
The fence sitters see the news and say to themselves, "self, there isn't much we can do without being incarcerated, I think I'll go buy a new SUV so I feel better." Anyone who might consider some kind of grass roots environmental action becomes terrified quickly by the thought of the man putting the squeeze on him. He might loose that, job, house, boat, peer respect, etc. And we wouldn't want that to happen. I'm just an un-educated hick from the sticks with a few memories of how to do some stuff on a computer. Better I just shut up now and tapity tap tap tap on my bosses accounting software, wouldn't want to miss that deadline... cough cough...
Re:Our domain of knowledge (Score:2, Interesting)
An example --
Might have been yesterday or the day before, but either NBC or CBS had a brief piece on some study regarding red wine. The anchor implied that the study showed that people who drink red wine tend to have better social status, higher intelligence, and what not...
...and, IIRC, completely ignored fundamental questions such as what variables were controlled for, such as whether non-drinkers could *afford* the red wine/dinner party/"cultured" lifestyle. Correlation versus causation went unmentioned, as if the anchor were merely reporting a press release.
Similarly, the editors of "Social Text" -- apparently, a left-leaning social studies journal -- were severely burned when they published the infamous Sokal Hoax; the editors claimed that they accepted it primarily on the basis of the reputation of the author (a physics professor). One suspects that they didn't bother reading the paper very much, since it's quite deliberately impenetrable nonsense. I highly recommend looking at it for amusement's sake.
Re:Our domain of knowledge (Score:1)
An interesting article on the Sokal host, in cleartext for the goatse wary
Celebrity "experts" and False Authority Syndrome (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists giving "expert opinions" outside their field of speciality is anouther common occurance (Carl Sagan comes to mind) in the media; perhaps because it is easier to know a handful of photogenic and cooperative scientists than to make a large number of contacts in different fields of research.
It seems to happen alot on slashdot, too.
Perhaps we should put useful biographical information in our sigs instead of cute sayings so that when someone with a degree in cognitive sciences is arguing with an aerospace engineer over spacecraft problems or adaptive behavior, we know which one to listen to at the time. I guess, perhaps that is what the User Info is for; but it doesn't seem to be used for that very often. Of course, if we get overly focused on "meatspace" identities, that might dampen otherwise productive discussions. Maybe different karma for different topics? Anyone have any ideas on how to minimize False Authority Syndrome on slashdot w/o introducing unneeded complexity or dampening useful dialog? Does it need worrying about?
What scares me the most (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What scares me the most (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't. Not only am I a geek, I'm a geek who flies planes. For both computer related stuff AND aviation related stuff, they get it completely and totally wrong. With aviation, they sensationalize even more than they do with anything to do with the 'net or computers, spouting opinions based on zero knowledge (and it shows).
I no longer watch the news on TV. Print news I feel is a little better depending on the source - it's not nearly as sensationalistic - but I still take everything with a big enough grain of salt that you could make a large livestock salt-lick out of it.
Google Cache of Pages. (Score:5, Informative)
Page 1 [google.co.uk]
Page 2 [google.co.uk]
Page 3 [google.co.uk]
Page 4 [google.co.uk]
Page 5 [google.co.uk]
Page 6 [google.co.uk]
Page 7 [google.co.uk]
Page 8 [google.co.uk]
90% of "Viruses" = Bad Software (Score:2)
"I can't print" != virus
"This brand new computer is running slow when I open Photoshop, IE, and Excel at the same time" != virus
However
"This .doc file won't open because we need to spend thousands for software we don't need" = virus
See the difference? [ridiculopathy.com]
Authority is effective (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Authority is effective (Score:2)
Re:Authority is effective (Score:2, Insightful)
No way man, you're speaking from false authority! :)
Re:Authority is effective (Score:2, Interesting)
I read the essay. I haven't read the book. But just from the essay, I wonder if a potential flaw in the experiment has ever been considered (I know nothing about psychology)
Obviously the `teacher' had discomfort about administering the shocks. But it seems to me that the teacher was just delegating the moral responsibility of care back to the experimenter. The teacher may not have known about the actual effects of the shocks (and labelling the switches with voltages may not be a good idea because people's understanding of the actual numbers vary), and just trusting that it was safe, because the experimenter was implying it.
Of course, the `learner' banging on the wall is a different thing :)
Re:Authority is effective (Score:2)
Re:Only if you accept the authority is it effectiv (Score:1)
However, some may not particularly believe in the validity of the experiment, but would feel, probably subconciously, that the experimenter has some kind of authority because of his status, title or knowledge, when really, why should a scientist have authority?
This experiment proves nothing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever criteria the subjects actually used, the compliant ones came to the correct conclusion that it was okay to keep pressing the buttons. The disobedient ones either came to the incorrect conclusion that they would commit some crime, or the correct conclusion that this is what was truly expected of them from the experimenters. Too little is known to draw any valid conclusions from this, especially since it was obviously a psychological experiment to the subjects themselves (it just wasn't clear which experiment it was).
At any rate, this experiment was torture of its subjects as much as it would be if they were really giving the shocks. "Psychological experiments" like these are crimes, pure and simple, not to mention scientifically invalid smartass cracks about human nature.
Re:This experiment proves nothing. (Score:1)
Die evil scumbag.
Re:This experiment proves nothing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Secondly, the fact that they thought they were taking a part in a different experiment is the perfect veil to administer this experiment without their knowledge or suspicion, or without them trying to think around the experiment, thereby skewing their reaction.
Totally missing the point. (Score:3, Insightful)
That was exactly what I was calling into question. They hesitated and protested because they thought they might have been causing damage. The fact was that they weren't causing damage, and you can't say with certainty that they believed, in the balance of things, that they were causing damage.
They had many reasons to believe they weren't causing damage. First of all, it's a psychological experiment run by a reputable university. You expect all manner of wierdness, you don't expect maiming and killing; normal standards of recognizing an emergency would be suspended. Secondly, the torture scenario makes no sense at all. If the experimenter wanted to torture the subject, he could simply press the button himself, he didn't need help, and he was certainly in a better position to judge whether the subject was in danger. Evil is not sufficient to explain the situation, it would take a very bizarre, unheard-of form of insanity (have you ever heard of anything remotely like a maniac who hired someone and stood by them and tricked them into activating a device which tortures or kills their victim?); even a practical joke is a thousand times more likely. In the board-operator's mind, we're really looking at a dilemma: it sounds like the person's being hurt, but nothing else about the situation allows the possibility that the person is really being hurt (the readings on the intensity scale are subject to many interpretations; it only sounds ominous because it is presented as such).
However, the root reason to doubt that they believed they were causing damage is that there was no damage. Deception is hard. People take in hundreds of subtle indicators when evaluating the honesty of a claim, and they were taking direction from a person who knew exactly what was going on. The above reasons are just two more particularly obvious flaws of a poorly planned deception, there would unavoidably be many more, when trying to create such a ridiculous perception in the mind of the subjects.
Those who quit didn't do so because they were certain that they would cause serious damage to someone, and decided they didn't want to contribute to it. Instead, they knew something very weird was going on, knew that they were being deceived in one way or another, and didn't want to play along any more.
Note: damage. A little non-damaging pain is not a big deal. We put up with it when we get a needle or when we exercise or for a hundred other routine things. If your doctor told you to hold your child's arm while he inserted the needle, you'd do it, and not worry because it was a little pain for a good reason. If these people could be offended at the idea of causing mere pain in a consenting individual, they would have left as soon as their role was revealed, and the decision to ever press the button would be the big .
This is simply not science. It's a political statement at best, psychological torture at worst.
ultracrepidarian (Score:5, Funny)
ultracrepidarian: (n., adj.) a person who gives opinions beyond his scope of knowledge.
I'll have to add this to my top ten words to use when talking over somebody's head.
Re:ultracrepidarian (Score:2, Insightful)
I've found this to be a common trait, in the number of times I've been interviewed since, that reporters, where they have a gap, don't call back for a correction, but just invent things. I think this goes some way to explain an ultracrepidarian, IMHO they don't really care enough to get it right.
Re:ultracrepidarian (Score:2, Informative)
As for reporters and their fancies, I did an interview with the Ottawa citizen 10 years ago that ended up on the front page. The reporter used every word of our conversation, unfortunately not in even remotely the same order. What began as a discussion on failures within the local social assistance branch of the government and the abuses I'd seen soon became a twisted version of the original where I bragged of helping others perpetuate fraud.
There were seven witnesses to my interview with him, so I could easily have sued the prick and won, but my parents wanted me to let it slide before their peers found out and it cost them their jobs.
Revenge was sweet though. A TV show doing a followup story contacted a friend of mine about the article and when he explained the truth of the matter they investigated the reporters practices. Last I'd heard he'd been fired
Re:ultracrepidarian (Score:5, Funny)
In case you're ever the recepient of a reporter's questions, here are a few recommendations for your survival:
- if it is "off the record," then don't say it. Off the record is reporter code for "this will be really juicy stuff to print, but I'll have to slightly reword it."
- if it involves a competitor or other antagonist, don't say it (reporters have a field day on creating any emotional tension, e.g. making you out to be a fool)
- if it is not for release now, keep your trap shut and only mention it when it is for release. Reporters survive by getting new stories out and their loyalty to their editor (and interest in keeping their job) is greater than their loyalty to you.
- if it is at all technical, give them a written release and limit the story to that. If you absolutely must be interviewed beyond the release, give them 10 minutes, give them a couple of soundbytes that you've pre-prepared, and refer everything else to the release.
- and if you're the boss, tell your employees that speaking to the press is voluntary resignation (e.g. nobody does it except you).
This will help you survive these critters.
*scoove*
Re:ultracrepidarian (Score:2, Insightful)
You really ought to read the ClueTrain Manifesto [searls.com]. One of the core arguments is that this sort of centralized communication from within companies is ignored by your customers.
Think about it. What gives you the warm and fuzzies? Would you rather an engineer at XYZ Co. tell you that they're having problems with the Linux drivers for their latest video card, or read the press release stating "the platform is currently unsupported."
Your friendly neigborhood devil's advocate...
Re:ultracrepidarian (Score:1)
The point isn't the engineer telling you they're having problems, it's the engineer telling (say) Jesse Berst they're having problems, and then reading a long, uninformed, blatantly wrong screed about how incompetent the company people are and how linux is inferior.
Cluetrain style decentralization (Score:2, Insightful)
With the press that's not possible -- not in any meaningful way, anyway. So sure, have your engineers talk to their engineers, but don't go blabbing to the press because then it's too likely to get out of control.
Re:ultracrepidarian (Score:1)
I learned this a long time ago. My boss told me I would be fired if I discussed salaries with other employees. I told him what I did on my own free time was none of his business. I also told him I would continue to discuss the salaries with other employees and there wasn't anything he could do about it. Want to know what the company did to me for violating the policy? Absolutely nothing, because they knew they would be open to a lawsuit.
As for a nondisclosure. I already mentioned you could be fired for revealing trade secrets. That's what a nondisclosure covers.
Next time, read what I posted before flaming me.
Re:ultracrepidarian (Score:2)
(a) Require, as a condition of employment, that any employee
refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages.
(b) Require any employee to sign a waiver or other document which
purports to deny the employee the right to disclose the amount of his
or her wages.
(c) Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against, for job advancement, an employee who discloses the amount of his or her wages.
Maybe your state has similar laws.
Re:ultracrepidarian (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't sex with John Lennon count as necrophilia now? Dead people aren't really "a different race", are they? I guess brain-eating zombies are, though.
Good one!
Actually, I was thinking of John and Yoko.
Someone seems to have been offended by it. I can't understand why anyone would be offended by xenodubroticism; it's merely a description, not a condemnation or endorsement of the interest.
It was probably the fact that the word musicians was in quotation marks, thus demonstrating my denegration of the genre of alleged music. Jeez, you'd think I'd insulted Sailor Moon or something like that.
Where's my bulk tape eraser? [click-HMMMMMMMM] Problem solved.
nonsense link (Score:2)
Where did common sense go? (Score:2, Insightful)
Be a skeptic. Demand proof and accountability from your information sources.
The Truth (Score:2, Funny)
Best story I remember... (Score:3, Funny)
This is not new(s) (Score:2)
In Living Color did a skit about this. It involved a journalist who was covering a shooting and as she was looking for someone to interview, she happened to pick out a street punk who went on to describe a ludicrous sequence of events.
"And there you have it..."
How to tell Mom she just forwarded a hoax... (Score:2, Insightful)
I never reply until I've researched the hoax and/or truth and proven to myself, at least two different ways.
The best way to ruin my credibility is to send out ONE wrong email.
I sign everything I send, including my phone number. If I'm not willing to have my full contact information forwarded to someone else along with my conclusions, it needs more research.
When I don't know the answer, I tell them so. And I recommend they just ignore it.
When I find it's a hoax, I ask them NOT to forward this conclusion until they've done the same research, and are willing to append their own conclusions. The propagation method of all hoaxes is thoughtless, research-free forwarded email.
If it turns out to be true, I make a point of including links to whatever authority I can find.
If it turns out to be false, I include links to at least two web sites that debunk the hoax/myth.
Finally, I almost always recommend that they take a minute to browse the Kumite Virus Hoaxes and Myths [vmyths.com] web site (seems to be down at the moment but it's a good review of quite a few common hoaxes).
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
If that's the case... (Score:2)
As an aside, I'm a little perplexed by the claim that there are few qualified high-tech experts: the field of computers and networks seems to enjoy a huge population, vis-a-vis just about any other (i.e., chemistry, the environment, biology, public health, economics etc.)
Re:If that's the case... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Funny)
No, no, no... read carefully: It says False Authority Syndrome. Slashdot editors select news from only authoritative sources[1], carefully check all facts[2], generate precise and accurate write-ups[3], and publish promptly[4]. Any story you read here can be trusted.
Notes:
1: Anonymous cowards
2: Asking on IRC, "Hey does this sound right?"
3: Including careful spell checks by CmdrTaco
4: Usually 2-3 months after news has appeared on Memepool, Slant-Six, K5, or similar sites.
no such thing as a "computer virus" (Score:2, Insightful)
Saying "Code Red" was a computer virus is FUD
it's an IIS virus
saying sircam is a computer virus is FUD it's an Outlook virus
saying Melissa is a computer virus is FUD it's an Outlook virus
(notice a vendor commonality?)
for the last time, it's "viruses" (Score:2)
Re:Thank you! 'Virii" my butt (Score:1)
Re:no such thing as a "computer virus" (Score:1)
Okay, I just felt like pointing that out...
Re:no such thing as a "computer virus" (Score:1)
being as I don't use office or outlook et. al. I fell for the FUD elsewhere
I put my faith in virus scanners on my Windows boxes.
they must catch 1 a week from incoming email attachements from people we know!
It works the other way, too: (Score:4, Informative)
She told me she had heard of a new CD format that was supposed to copy-protect CD's by making them damage your stereo speakers.
Knowing quite a bit about the Red-book standard, I told her that such a format was impossible and that it was almost certainly a hoax.
Once I got back on the net and read about the Macro-vision scheme now in use in thousands of CD's, I had to call her and tell her that I was mistaken.
You mean to tell me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, it's little wonder that this is being codified into a syndrome since it seems that Joe Q. Public has it into his head that just because someone knows how to stick a card into a PCI slot, they must be a certifiable computer genius. I know as the most up-to-speed user in my small company, I get a daily barrage of questions about every computer related topic imaginable. While I have no hesitation in letting my coworkers know that I haven't a clue as to what it is they are talking about (which they read off reuters this morning and can never keep the details of straight), they still persist in thinking that the most computer saavy person in the room must be a network-sysadmin-31337-haxor-d00d-MCSE-Ph.d-in-co
Re:It works the other way, too: (Score:2)
Re:It works the other way, too: (Score:1)
OT: Exploding Water! (Score:3, Funny)
I got the email about superheated water from your microwave, and how it could explode. Wrote back explaining, "No, mom. It's just another one of those hoaxes I keep telling you about." Sheesh, when will she learn.
Fast forward two weeks, I'm watching TV and see this interesting video ...
Well damn, how about that. [dial dial dial ... ring ... ring ]
Umm yeah, Mom? Sorry. You were right ...
I called that number!! (Score:4, Funny)
The number was at Los Alamos national laboratory, and I decided that with my shiny new cell-phone with free long distance I would call the number.
Haha, much to my surprise, the woman picked up the phone, and I asked her if the email was true. She said it was and asked me to take the number off the mail if I sent it to anyone, because ever since that mail had gone out her phone had been ringing off the hook.
Re:OT: Exploding Water! (Score:2)
The 'exploding water' thing predates the e-mail by a few years. When we got our first microwave (a Toshiba, IIRC) the manual contained a warning that you should make sure that if you were boiling the water, you should vigorously fill the container with water or it may "erupt". In fact, I've seen this happen - boil the water in the microwave, then drop a teabag in and it will erupt (anything from just fizzing like a can of Coke to water being splashed out of the container).
Re:OT: Exploding Water! (Score:3, Insightful)
So i wouldn't have discounted that superheated water story anyway. But that also means, before accepting or discounting such a story one should think if one has expertise on the subject. By dismissing it all as a hoax you became the false authority. It's rather better to say "Well i don't know about that, i have to know more before making a statement", maybe followed by "but i don't believe in it". It's ok to have an opinion about the credibility of a statement, but it should be marked thus.
Re:It works the other way, too: (Score:2)
Re:It works the other way, too: (Score:1)
If you want to kill a voice-coil speaker, give it DC. Full rail from the power amp. Whoops, that'll fry the amp first ;-) Next best practice is to use a low frequency square wave with a duty cycle of 90 percent. Watch as the woofer tries to jump out of its surround.
Big fun...
Re:It works the other way, too: (Score:2)
What would you call it? "Bet you can't play this CD"? Or "This CD will kill your stereo"? Or "This is one CD you CAN lend out"?
I bet you that some audiophiles would take this as a challenge, just to prove that their systems are invincible. Oops! I should have written "stereophiles"... Audiophiles listen to music, stereophiles listen to equipment.
If you think I'm joking, look up an album called "The power and the majesty". It's full of thunderstorm and train noises. Honest!
Re:It works the other way, too: (Score:1)
Re:News media FUD: "Americans want Kyoto treaty" (Score:1)
I certainly hate SUV's. It's the ultimate self-absorbed, take-whats-mine, do-it-cuz-I-can attitude. I think most other people who DON'T drive SUV's are also annoyed with:
not being able to see the road due to the oversized 'offroad' station-wagons
the fact that what should be a fender-bender usually ends up getting the non-SUV driver injured or killed
How they guzzle gas and have higher emissions, yet get around the gas-guzzler tax by using the truck/van loophole.
Of course, I'm replying to the ever-assinine Anonymous Coward, so I've probably just be trolled.
Re:It works the other way, too: (Score:2)
Redbook standard allows for massive dynamic range: CD's can represent sounds digitally up to about 300dB.
People who mix their own CD's will recognize this fact in that they have to 'normalize' their tracks if they want everything on the CD to play at the same approximate volume.
If a loud-enough, sharp-enough sound is pumped through your speakers, however, they will blow. While I'm certain that it's not common, no it's *not* impossible for 'Cactus' scheme to damage your audio equipment.
The Big Complaint (Score:2)
> however, they will blow. While I'm certain that it's not common, no it's
> *not* impossible for 'Cactus' scheme to damage your audio equipment.
While you're technically correct, the big complaint stems from the spreading of the idea that the Cactus CP scheme can do damage to your set the the data stream itself can't. There are many non-technical people that come to me with concerns that Cactus will use some secret juju to destroy the system, not just by producing a noise level capable of damaging the system, and that's why the story annoyed me. If they had said something like, "Cactus causes interference noise on copied CDs, and if your volume level is set high enough, this noise can overload the speakers" I would have found the story informative. As it was, it seemed calculated to misinform.
Virg
Re:It works the other way, too: (Score:2)
Wrong. The moral is: don't assume.
You know what they say... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's always a source of amazement to me how many people are capable of maintaining this perspective towards the media. I always try to think back to every single teeth-grinding, knee-gripping instance of media inaccuracy in a tech story whenever I'm exposed to a story on a subject on a topic which is unfamiliar to me.
The same holds true for anything else... (Score:2)
Repeat after me: "Reporters are idiots" (Score:5, Funny)
Why do I say this? I work in a tech center. We do a lot of nifty complicated work usually involving a lot of computers and/or math. It's neat stuff, but not that hard to understand what it is even if you don't understand the details of it. (part prototyping, databases, 3d computer graphics, etc) Because of the kind of work we do, we are something of a showpiece for the company. We get reporters and TV crews coming through all the time. The visits usually go something like this:
Us: Here's this nifty complicated new piece of equipment that is going to help us make widgets faster, better and cheaper.
Then: Uh-huh. Can you turn the lights in the room down and stand over by the blinking lights? We need a picture.
Us: But those lights are the air conditioning system.
Them: Yeah but it looks cool and I didn't understand a word you said anyway.
They also have this peculiar fascination with taking pictures in low light conditions with glowing things. My wife worked in a lab where they used radioactive chemical markers for testing. They wanted to turn the lights down to get a picture of the spectrometer (which wasn't even in use) while showing someone handling radioactive chemicals in the dark. Very safe...
Needless to say, I don't watch the evening news anymore...
Here's a fun game (Score:3, Insightful)
Does this ever happen where you work or go to school? I can count on one hand the number of times I have gathered around co-workers (only on one side, wouldn't want to block the camera) while they pointed at a screen. Yet this image has become almost universal in the media's coverage of computers and science!
The Boston Globe did a feature on a place I used to work. They tore the place up, taking pictures and disrupting everything.. and then people read the story thinking they just took candid pictures while everyone was working!
Re:Repeat after me: "Reporters are idiots" (Score:2)
Slashdotted - copy here (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:ahVwga1Oq1
Re:Slashdotted - copy here (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Slashdotted - copy here (Score:2, Informative)
You need to take out the "ahVwga1Oq1o" stuff; whenever you do anything on Google involving a URL, they prepend it with a hash string to (I presume) speed up lookups in their database. If you change just the URL, Google will still bring up the original page if you leave that hash in.
Re:Slashdotted - copy here (Score:2, Informative)
Page 2 [google.co.uk]
Page 3 [google.co.uk]
Page 4 [google.co.uk]
Page 5 [google.co.uk]
Page 6 [google.co.uk]
Page 7 [google.co.uk]
Page 8 [google.co.uk]
I admit it. I should have checked first. Couldn't edit my post afterwards. *sniff* I'm sorry! =)
False Authority? Or just gossip? (Score:2)
*The News* (Score:2, Insightful)
*The News* is not necessarily about informing you of anything important. *The News* is about selling your eyeballs to advertisers. *The News* has therefore got to grab your attention and get your eyeballs in front of the advertising. You can always print a 'correction' on page 3, or just nevermind that 'facts' got 'distorted' in the 'reporting'.
It seems to me that this could be used to focus attention on the DMCA and other important, but non-sexy issues. We just have to come up with new wording that grabs attention.. Hm .. I dunno, can you relate the DMCA's limits on reproduction to sex?
Re:*The News* (Score:2, Interesting)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ and yes, that'll get you UK-focussed news but they're not just aiming for eyeballs for advertisers. I'm delighted that we have something like this and they're probably my primary news source.
Having said that, they still got some home users worried about Code Red...
CODE RED!!!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Or maybe this is that even more insidious virus/worm I've been hearing about, the /. effect...
Re:Here it comes (Score:1, Redundant)
(chough...bible..chough).
Re:Here it comes (Score:1, Offtopic)
Tell me about it. I spent years thinking it was spelt 'cough'.
Whoops there goes my karma!
Re:Problem is obvious (Score:1)
proposed solution much worse than actual problem (Score:2)
If I get a message that says "Make Millions in your spare time" signed Commander Taco, will I believe this? Not likely. The message is self invalidating.
But more to the point, many quite well identified actual persons on the internet are just as reckless with the truth as any anonymous spammer.
I don't see any virtue in your proposal. I don't see any desireable features. And I see a lot of the others. Telling me that it will protect me from the bogeyman doesn't impress me favorably, either.
(FWIW, my suspicion is that child molesters prefer to live somewhere near their targets. So the internet is pretty much irrelevant, except that it tends to keep kids indoors, where they are a bit less exposed.)
Re:Problem is obvious (Score:2)
If people keep spreading lies (which they will) then the outcome will be that people recieving advice get fed up with it and will actually have to think for themselves a bit and make a few checks instead of blindly soldiering on doing what they have been told by someone just because they sounded authoritative at the time.
This is a good thing; it will encourage independent thinking.
Who knows.. once people stop blindly believing rambling idiots and learn to think for themselves, maybe they will start to question some of the more experienced liars around on the internet. You know who I mean. The ones who ARE who they say they are, but because of their popularity, idiots just blindly believe everything they say as well.
No. This is not a problem. It is part of the solution to one.
Re:Problem is obvious (Score:2)
That only really applies to the sort of people who are usually already clued-up enough to have some idea of what is and isn't real.
The average user has no idea what an IP address is, what spoofing one means, or how to find out who owns one.
What we need is some kind of identification verification procedure online...I'm all for tying real-life identities to online personas because it would mean accountability for actions
It would also mean the possibility for invasion of privacy on a staggering scale. In real life, I could get you arrested for following me around wherever I go, noting down who I speak to, what I look at, etc. Why should it be any different online? Just because I might commit a crime, that it would be harder to catch me for?
There will always be ways to circumvent any sort of identity scheme, if you know how to and want to badly enough. At best, all it'd do would be to remove any last vestage of privacy online for ordinary people, and let you catch the sort of criminals who aren't going to be bright enough to commit any serious crimes anyway. At worst, it would allow people to frame others much more easily, by using their identity to commit crimes online.
Cheers,
Tim
Point of Approval (Score:2)
> board room, and I had suggested that the lack of accountability online
> could be olved by identification trackers, would you have stood up and called me a moron?
Why do you assume that all communications on the Internet needs to conform to business standards of etiquette? If you made such a claim on a street corner, and I resonded by calling you a rude name, would you ask me my name or other personal information? Would you ask me to prove myself if I told you my name? Would you have the right to force me to do so? The simple answer is that accountability in real life is not nearly as complete as you suspect, and identification online is subject to the same limitations as real life. If I want to lie about my identity online, I need only make sure I am careful about how my avatar presents itself, just as I could carry a fake ID in meatspace. Your solution of forcing proof of identity online smacks of the police stopping people on the street with "papers, please" requests, just to be sure everyone is polite enough to suit you.
Asshole.
Virg
You Don't Know (Score:2)
> is not required are usually young, immature, and undereducated boys.
> Tell me, do those traits fit you? I bet so.
Over 30, college degree, father of two. You decide whether to pay up on the bet. You should also realize that "not required" and "never appropriate" are not one and the same thing by my argument.
Virg
Re:False Authority Syndrome, not just for virii (Score:1)
Honestly, presence of a firewall does not eliminate the chance of getting hacked, just reduces them, but having a windows 98 box which is
Firewalls and exploits (Score:2)
A good firewall helps by enforcing protocols, and refusing to pass unknown protocols without explicit configuration by the adminstrators.
The ultimate example of this are the various products which allow you to 'profile' the normal requests and system calls of a product, and will block anything outside of the profile.
By careful enforcement of 'least privledge' and protocol-specific proxies, a firewall can protect against attacks that are not yet known.
Re:another victim of the slashdot gangbang (Score:1)
The link shows this to be a Cold Fusion page.
If it gets more than 5 hits in a day, the chip melts and the CF server mails itself to Bogota so it can forget its problems in mountains of happy dust.
For better performance than Cold Fusion, hack Apache into a gameboy and connect to local provider via a very tight string.
Re:date on story? (Score:1)
Heck, there's probably stuff in the Old Testament about not believing false prophets of doom and naysayers.
Lemme look...
Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deuteronomy 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deuteronomy 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Of course the following verse:
Isiah 19:9 Moreover they that work in fine flax, and they that weave networks, shall be confounded.
Clearly indicates that sysadmins will always be frustrated.
dave "all hail project gutenberg!"
Re:Wait a sec (Score:3, Insightful)
True - the trick is figuring out how to make the media cover the really important stories of our time (DCMA, censorship, etc) in a way that'll benefit us instead of hinder us. If they make $$ covering the really important stuff, cool. Yeah - its a dream , but hey you gotta dream! :)
Re:Wait a sec (Score:2)
I am of the opinion that the "general public" already knows reporters are full of shit. Their credibility has spiraled down as they've raced to compete with Jerry Springer and the National Enquirer for ratings.
Re:This is why we need CNN, ABC, NBC, WSJ (Score:2, Insightful)
They may know how to, but how often do they bother? CNN, ABC and NBC have all been nailed for various "issues" in their stories, if memory serves; for instance, there was CNN's story claiming that members of US Army SOGs used chemical weapons to kill American defectors in 'Nam, IIRC. The reporters involved were fired.
NBC Dateline got nailed for not only misreporting a story (the CNN SOG bit apparently hinged on selective use and interpretation of interviews), but for basically making one up: they deliberately uncapped the gas tanks of certain GM vehicles for a collision test, in order to help them burst dramatically into flame. Not too many people drive around with their gas tanks open. My memory's telling me that there was also a minor pyrotechnic device involved...
And it might have been ABC's _Prime Time Live_ that got sued (successfully) by _Food Lion_ regarding their investigative practices.
Newspapers aren't untainted; ISTR that the SJ Mercury eventually retracted the CIA-Contra-Cocaine Conspiracy story.
If they're busy finding their own dodgy bits of news to present for the sake of ratings / circulation, then how much time are they spending checking their own?
I wouldn't often associate the news programs with integrity, when it comes to more dramatic stories. When they report that yet another bomb went off in the Middle East or that Bush meets Putin in Genoa or that the DJIA dropped a bit, that's quite possibly correct -- but when they veer off to "beware! beware!" stories, well... beware.